OFFICIAL REPORT.



The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Farmers Land Purchase Company Bill,

To be read the third time To-morrow.

Lands Improvement Company Bill,

Llantrisant and Llantwit Fardre Rural District Council Bill,

Penllwyn Railway Abandonment Bill,

Read the third time, and passed.

Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Epsom District Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY BILL),

"to regulate the expenditure on capital account and landing money by the London County Council during the financial period from the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and twenty, to the thirtieth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-one; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CIVIL VETERINARY SERVICE.

Sir RICHARD COOPER: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he has received representations of the position of the civil veterinary service of India owing to the inadequate salaries of its officers and the impossibility of retaining men of ability; if he will say what increase in pay has been generally made in this service since 1914; and if he can announce the intentions of the Government of India on this matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): Proposals for improving the pay and prospects of the Indian Veterinary Service have recently been received from the Government of India, and these are now being examined-An announcement will be made as early as possible.

PUNJAB LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he has received any intimation that a representative provincial conference held early this month at Jullundur, in the Punjab, protested against what it considered to be an attempt to deprive the Punjabis of the opportunity of getting the utmost out of the Government of India Act by so framing rules under that Act as to keep the Punjab Legislative Council small, pack it with landed aristocracy and other conservative elements, and otherwise keep, as far as possible, educated Punjabis out of that Council; and whether he would give an assurance that consideration of the Punjab rules will be postponed until detailed representation of the conference's wishes is received in England?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have seen a telegram, the general purport of which, though less specific, is of the kind indicated in the question. If the complaints are well-founded, I have no doubt that the Government of India and their non-official Adivisory Committee (on which the Punjab is represented) will pay due attention to them in considering the draft rules, which will eventually come before Parliament.

PRIVILEGE LEAVE.

Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to Army Instruction (India) No. 99, of 1920, whether he is aware that this instruction, which authorises the combination of privilege leave with field service concessions, is being construed as applicable only to officers who have been struck off duty since 1st May, 1919, with the result that officers incapacitated during the War, including even those still sick on 1st May, 1919, are deprived of any privilege leave accruing to them since 4th August, 1914; whether it is his intention so to discriminate against officers incapacitated during the War; and, if not,
whether he will consider, in conjunction with the Finance Department of the War Office, the issue of an amended Order?

Mr. MONTAGU: I will communicate with the War Office regarding the matter.

GOVERNMENT TREASURIES (ROUBLE NOTES).

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether rouble notes to the approximate value of £2,662,500 at the present rate of exchange have recently been deposited in the Government treasuries, and whether he has any information to the effect that a very large proportion of this sum represents funds paid in by propagandists of the Bolshevist régime in Russia; and, if the answer is in the affirmative, whether any action has been taken in the matter?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have no official information as to the value of the rouble notes deposited at Government Treasuries in India under the terms of the recent Ordinance. The Government of India are taking active steps to counteract Bolshevik propaganda in India.

DEOBUND ARABIC SCHOOL.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Sheikh-ul-Islam, of the Deobund Arabic School, in the Saharunpur district, has recently been arrested and deported from India on account of the subversive and anti-Government propaganda in which he has been engaged; whether, for many years past, the Deobund Arabic School, originally inaugurated with the intention of grounding trans-frontier Pathans in the principles of Islam, has, in fact, been a centre of seditious propaganda; and whether, in view of this, the school will now be closed?

Mr. MONTAGU: I presume the hon. Member refers to one of the doctors of the school in question, who had mixed himself up in seditious intrigues before leaving for Mecca in September, 1915. His conduct in Arabia led to his arrest by the Hedjaz authorities. He was removed to Egypt and eventually interned at Malta. Neither before these intrigues nor since the departure of the particular doctor has there been, to my knowledge, complaint of seditious propaganda at Deobund, and there appears to be no reason for the suggestion that the school should be closed.

BORDER DISTRICTS.

Mr. WATERSON: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that a representative provincial conference that met on 2nd April at Jullundur, the Punjab, expressed great concern at conditions of insecurity of life and property in border districts and in the North-West Frontier Province; and if he will enlighten the House as to the steps that he is taking to protect life and property in those districts?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have received no report of the proceedings at the conference referred to. The hon. Member is aware that military operations are in progress for the purpose of restoring order, and he may rest assured that conditions on the border are engaging the active attention of the Government of India.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question refers also to Baluchistan, where, apparently, Indian life and property are not safe at the present time?

Mr. MONTAGU: I was not aware of the geographical area to which it refers.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I have sent the right hon. Gentleman a letter about it today.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

COMPARATIVE STRENGTH OF NAVIES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 7.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he proposes to issue a Return showing the comparative strengths of the navies of the principal Powers and the strength of the Royal Navy?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir James Craig): It is not proposed to issue this Return for some time yet.

Mr. BILLING: Will the Admiralty give the House an undertaking that none of our vessels will be disposed of to foreign Powers by the Ministry of Munitions?

Sir J. CRAIG: That hardly arises on this question.

BATTLE OF JUTLAND (OFFICIAL ACCOUNT).

Commander Viscount CURZON: 8.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the official account of the Battle of Jutland will be published?

Sir J. CRAIG: The official record is now in the hands of the printers, but I understand that technicalities connected with the production make it improbable that publication can take place in much less than three months from now.

Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that this account of the Battle of Jutland would be published about a month after the first volume of the History of the War?

Sir J. CRAIG: I went into the matter very carefully, and I understand it is purely a technical difficulty. It would be impossible to hold out any hopes before three months.

CHINA STATION (DESTROYERS).

Viscount CURZON: 9.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to station any destroyers on the China Station, as in the case of the pre-War Fleet?

Sir J. CRAIG: It is not the intention at present to station torpedo-boat destroyers on the China Station.

OFFICERS (REDUCTION IN NUMBER).

Viscount CURZON: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is in a position to make any statement as to how it is proposed to deal with the reduction of the number of officers of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines?

Sir J. CRAIG: My Noble and gallant Friend has, no doubt, seen the particulars of the scheme of retirement which have appeared in the Press, and instructions have also been issued to the Fleet. I am forwarding him a copy of the Fleet Order.

Viscount CURZON: Is it intended to retire any officers compulsorily, and, if so, how will they be informed of the intention of the Admiralty?

Sir J. CRAIG: Perhaps my Noble Friend will kindly withhold his second fire for a day or two.

NAVAL MANŒUVRES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to carry out naval manœuvres this year?

Sir J. CRAIG: It is not proposed to carry out naval manœuvres this year. It
is in contemplation, however, to commission certain vessels in Reserve for a short period.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

TRAINING FACILITIES (NEGOTIATIONS WITH TRADE UNIONS).

Mr. HURD: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is able to report any progress in the negotiations with trade unions for the admission of ex-soldiers who are not disabled to training facilities in suitable occupations of their own choice?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): The training facilities under the training schemes administered by my Department are designed for disabled ex-service men (except in the case of the Interrupted Apprenticeship Schemes). In these circumstances no negotiations are being conducted with the trade unions regarding the inclusion in these schemes, in organised trades, of fit ex-service men. On the general question, however, after discussion with the parties, a Committee has been set up "to consider the best means of facilitating the re-employment of ex-service men, and to make recommendations to the Minister of Labour with regard thereto." On this Committee, which recently held its first meeting, there are representatives of the Ex-Service Men's Associations, the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress, the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations, and of my Department.

Viscount CURZON: May I ask whether it is not a fact that further summonses have been taken out against a certain Member of this House for employing disabled men, and what action is being taken in regard to that?

Sir M. BARLOW: I was not aware of that. If my noble and gallant Friend will put down a question I will deal with it.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Can the hon. Gentle-mean state the names of this Committee which has been set up, and whether all parties are represented upon it?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have not the names in front of me. I do not know whether
there is any difficulty about stating them, but if my hon. Friend will put down a question I shall be very glad to deal with it. I can say at once that, as far as I am aware, all parties are represented on the Committee.

LAND SETTLEMENT.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 88.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture the acreage of land included in the Titchfield, Hants, settlement for ex-service men and the price paid for it; the acreage let to individual settlers; the maximum and minimum rents charged per acre and the rents paid by the previous tenants for the same land; whether the rent includes any other charge besides the bare rent of the land; and, if so, what is the purpose and the amount of the extra charge in each case?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The Titchfield Farm Settlement is 1,392 acres in extent, and the purchase price was £55,800. At present 230 acres are let to 76 ex-service men, the rent being per £4 acre for the first year and £5 per acre subsequently. The rents paid by smallholders previous to the property being purchased by the Ministry varied in amount, but averaged about £3 per acre. This rent was paid for the bare land which the tenants had themselves to clear, and get into good order. The Ministry are getting the land into thoroughly good order before letting it, they are providing facilities for the hire of horses, implements, etc., and demonstration plots are being established. In view of these advantages and the increased rate of interest now existing, it has been necessary to fix a higher standard of rent.

Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the actual cost?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have told the hon. Member the cost of the land. I can send him a complete account of the whole cost of the estate if he wishes.

DISABLED SOLDIERS (KING'S ROLL OF EMPLOYERS).

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of firms in each great centre of industry who have signed the King's circular to employ their quota of disabled soldiers, and if he can state the number of disabled soldiers still unprovided for?

Sir M. BARLOW: The total number of establishments on the King's National Roll at present is 14,144. The names of the firms up to 31st December, 1919, are given in the first edition of the Roll, which has been published, and copies of which have been sent to hon. Members. An analysis of the Roll by centres of industry could not be made without great labour, but I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the number of firms on the Roll for each county. The number of ex-service disabled men on the live registers of Employment Exchanges at 1st April was 25,700, as compared with 30,000 at 5th March and 39,600 at 9th January.

The following is the statement referred to:—


ENGLAND.


Bedfordshire
…
…
…
132


Berkshire
…
…
…
75


Buckinghamshire
…
…
…
45


Cambridgeshire
…
…
…
70


Cheshire
…
…
…
278


Cornwall
…
…
…
12


Cumberland
…
…
…
47


Derbyshire
…
…
…
188


Devonshire
…
…
…
97


Dorsetshire
…
…
…
51


Durham
…
…
…
193


Essex
…
…
…
334


Gloucestershire
…
…
…
186


Hampshire
…
…
…
130


Herefordshire
…
…
…
61


Hertfordshire
…
…
…
109


Huntingdonshire
…
…
…
15


Isle of Man
…
…
…
1


Isle of Wight
…
…
…
5


Kent
…
…
…
396


Lancashire
…
…
…
1,830


Leicestershire
…
…
…
284


Lincolnshire
…
…
…
181


London
…
…
…
1,806


Middlesex
…
…
…
261


Norfolk
…
…
…
152


Northamptonshire
…
…
…
188


Northumberland
…
…
…
108


Nottinghamshire
…
…
…
396


Oxfordshire.
…
…
…
26


Rutlandshire
…
…
…
1


Shropshire
…
…
…
140


Somersetshire
…
…
…
102


Staffordshire
…
…
…
1,359


Suffolk
…
…
…
128


Surrey
…
…
…
298


Sussex
…
…
…
249


Warwickshire
…
…
…
759


Westmorland.
…
…
…
9




Wiltshire
…
…
…
47


Worcestershire
…
…
…
458


Yorkshire
…
…
…
1,605


Total, England
…
…
…
12,812




SCOTLAND.


Aberdeen
…
…
…
23


Aberdeenshire
…
…
…
6


Argyle
…
…
…
4


Ayrshire
…
…
…
30


Banffshire
…
…
…
1


Berwickshire
…
…
…
2


Caithness
…
…
…
4


Clackmannon
…
…
…
6


Dumfries
…
…
…
36


Dundee
…
…
…
12


Dumbartonshire
…
…
…
18


Edinburgh
…
…
…
306


Fifeshire
…
…
…
26


Forfarshire
…
…
…
39


Glasgow
…
…
…
155


Haddington
…
…
…
8


Inverness
…
…
…
10


Kirkcudbright
…
…
…
6


Kincardineshire
…
…
…
1


Linlithgowshire
…
…
…
3


Morayshire
…
…
…
7


Midlothian
…
…
…
1


Peebles
…
…
…
19


Perthshire
…
…
…
19


Orkney Isles
…
…
…
1


Renfrewshire
…
…
…
47


Ross-shire
…
…
…
2


Roxburgh
…
…
…
23


Selkirk
…
…
…
30


Stirlingshire
…
…
…
22


Wigtown
…
…
…
3


Lanarkshire
…
…
…
64


Total, Scotland
…
…
…
934




WALES.


Anglesey
…
…
…
6


Brecknockshire
…
…
…
4


Carmarthenshire
…
…
…
12


Carnarvonshire
…
…
…
16


Denbighshire
…
…
…
84


Flintshire
…
…
…
18


Glamorganshire
…
…
…
188


Merionethshire
…
…
…
8


Monmouthshire
…
…
…
40


Montgomeryshire
…
…
…
15


Pembrokeshire
…
…
…
6


Radnorshire
…
…
…
1


Total, Wales
…
…
…
398

Captain LOSEBY: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the second edition of this revised Roll will be published?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am not in a position to say when it will be published, but I understand that it is being undertaken.

Mr. LUNN: Would the hon. Gentleman show specially in his analysis how the local authorities and Government Departments have adopted this Roll?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am not quite certain on what basis the analysis is being prepared, but perhaps, if it does not satisfy my hon. Friends opposite, they will put a question down about it, and we will endeavour to satisfy them.

Captain LOSEBY: Will this revised Roll be published according to towns and districts?

Sir M. BARLOW: I was not aware that any promise had been given to that effect, but, of course, if it has been given, it will be carried out.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.

Mr. HURD: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements have been entered into by the Ministry preparatory to the creation of new or enlarged labour exchanges throughout the country; and whether, in view of the state of the national finances and the widespread objections of both employers and employed to this type of bureaucracy, he will take steps to curtail this branch of the administration?

Sir M. BARLOW: Arrangements are being made to improve the accommodation of the existing Employment Exchanges in order that the fullest possible facilities for their use by the public may be available and that the staff employed in them may no longer work under conditions prejudicial to their health and to the efficient performance of their duties. The question of the enlargement of existing Exchanges or the creation of new Exchanges will be largely determined by the additional responsibilities which may be entrusted to the Exchanges as a result of legislation, and in this connection the attention of the hon. Member is drawn to the provisions of the Unemployment In
surance Bill now before the House. I am not aware of the widespread objections to which my hon. Friend refers. The Local Employment Committees, which are fully representative of employers and employed in each locality, have on many occasions made strong representations to the Department with regard to the un-suitability of the existing premises.

Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that no further development in connection with these Exchanges will take place until further legislation has been propounded to the House?

Sir M. BARLOW: I do not think it is possible to answer that question in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

DWELLING HOUSES COMPLETED.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 16.
asked the Minister of Health the total number of dwelling houses built or acquired under the Housing Acts of last year which are now in occupation, the number actually under construction, and also the number for which plans have been finally approved and building contracts let; and whether he is satisfied that everything possible is being done to secure the completion of an adequate number of houses by the end of this year?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): According to returns received on the 1st April, 1920, 1,346 houses and flats were completed with the exception, in some cases, of painting. In addition 12,138 houses were in various stages of construction at that date. Tenders have been approved for 92,080 houses and contracts signed for the erection of 40,292 of these. The plans of 164,157 houses have been approved. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative, so far as matters over which I have any control are concerned.

CONVERSION OF HOUSES INTO FLATS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 17
asked the Minister of Health (1) whether his attention has been drawn to a decision of the judge of the Marylebone County Court upon an application to convert a large private dwelling house in Porchester Gate into two or more tenements, that Section 27 of The Housing, Town Planning, etc.,
Act, 1919, referred only to houses for the working classes; can he take steps to alter this; (2) whether, in view of the shortage of housing accommodation for all classes of the community and the number of large houses unoccupied, he will introduce an amending Act so as to extend the benefits of Section 27 of The Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, to all classes?

Dr. ADDISON: My attention had not been previously drawn to the case referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. I will endeavour to obtain a report of the case, and will then consider whether it is necessary or desirable to take any action in regard to it.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the judgment if I send it to him, and will he receive a deputation with a view to putting all classes on more or less the same basis?

Dr. ADDISON: I shall be glad to read the judgment. With regard to a deputation, I should like to consider precisely what the subject is. It may be one on which I have already received deputations.

Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the fact that the word "working classes" is frequently employed in legislative measures, will the right hon. Gentleman lay down who are the working classes? Is he aware that the type of people who are penalised under this question are infinitely more impecunious than the usual recognised working classes?

Dr. ADDISON: That may be, but I entirely decline to attempt to define them.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is it a fact that when these large houses are cut up into two or three dwellings they are very unsatisfactory, and it is far better to go on with the new building programme than tinker about with old houses.

Dr. ADDISON: That may be true, but at the same time a certain amount of additional accommodation has been provided in this way.

NON-ECONOMIC RENTS.

Mr. CLOUGH: 20.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of cases in which his Department has decided that a non-economic rent is being
charged by local authorities for new dwellings; what action he has taken in these cases; what is the lowest rent and the highest rent charged respectively; and if he will give the names of the places concerned?

Dr. ADDISON: Houses erected by 30 local authorities are occupied by tenants. The rents obtained—which vary according to the locality and the size of the house—range from 7s. per week (exclusive of rates) in rural areas to 17s. 6d. per week (exclusive of rates) in the neighbourhood of London and the large towns. In no case does the rent obtained represent an economic return on the capital cost. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that the Housing Acts contemplate that the loss, arising from the fact that the best rents obtainable may not be sufficient to meet the annual charges, should be borne by the Exchequer, and, to a limited extent, by local authorities.

LETTING TO VISITORS, MIDDLETON-IN-TEESDALE.

Mr. SWAN: 24.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the scarcity of houses in the district of Middleton-in-Teesdale and the resentment caused to the people of that district by people who possess two houses or more letting them to visitors, whilst many who live there are overcrowded and cannot get a house; and if he will take steps to prevent this abuse and communicate with the local authority in order to find out how far the abuse exists?

Dr. ADDISON: Local authorities have power under Section 12 of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act., 1919, to acquire houses which might be made suitable for the working classes. I have called for a report on the position in the district to which the hon. Member refers.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

AREAS OCCUPIED BY FRENCH TROOPS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether all the black troops have been withdrawn from the newly occupied areas of Germany; and, if not, how many are remaining, and where?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I must point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that answers to questions such as these cannot be given by a Member of His Majesty's Government. The publication of information of this character is entirely a matter for the French Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it impossible for this Government to indicate to the French Government that we do not consider Senegalese proper troops to garrison German towns?

Captain R. TERRELL: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, to avoid misconceptions and erroneous inferences, he can see his way to publishing the Notes exchanged with France on the occasion of the recent operations on the right bank of the Rhine?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if the occupation by Prussian troops of the Ruhr district in contravention of the terms of the Peace Treaty was supported by President Wilson in Notes to Great Britain and France, while at the same time he opposed any measures being taken by France to safeguard her position; and, if so, will he state whether, as America has refused to become a party to the Peace Treaty, it is competent for President Wilson to intervene in matters with which he is not in practical touch?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): For the reasons stated on Monday, I hope that my hon. Friends will not press for an answer to questions on this subject.

Captain TERRELL: Have the British Government yet consulted the French Government as to the advisability of publishing these Notes?

Mr. BONAR LAW: There have been discussions between the Governments. They have not been published in France, and I do not think that it is desirable to publish them here.

Viscount CURZON: Was not a statement made yesterday in France on this very point?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No. I have read as carefully as I could the reports that have
been received of the statement of the French Prime Minister, and there was no reference to this in it.

Mr. SHORT: Are the relations between this country and France now harmonious?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, and I hope that they always will be as they have been.

Sir F. HALL: Would my right hon. Friend object to my putting down the question in a week or fortnight?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have looked into the question carefully, and I do not think that it is one that I should feel justified at any time in answering.

Mr. BILLING: Is it not a fact that an agreement already exists between the British and the French Governments?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I shave already answered on this matter. I have taken the view that the place where a discussion ought to take place on this matter is at San Remo between the representatives of the two Governments. I am perfectly convinced that the discussion on this question had better be conducted at such a conference than in public.

ARREST OF NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENTS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Lord Kilmarnock has lodged a protest against the action of the Baltic troops, and especially of Lieutenant Linsenmeyer, in arresting and ill-treating the newspaper correspondents at Essen; whether an apology has been made; and what action is to be taken regarding this Lieutenant Linsenmeyer?

Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that certain British journalists have recently been subjected to indignities and maltreatment by order of Prussian officers; and if he will say what steps the Government propose to take in the matter?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, Sir; Lord Kilmarnock has, on the instructions of the Foreign Secretary, made a protest, and demanded an apology and adequate punishment of the guilty parties. The German Government have expressed their regret to Mr. Voigt direct at the Ministry
for Foreign Affairs in Berlin, and have ordered an immediate, strict inquiry to be instituted.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it likely that the German Government can carry out disciplinary action with regard to this Lieutenant Linsenmeyer?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should think so, certainly.

COAL DELIVERIES TO FRANCE.

Sir F. HALL: 54.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if Germany has delivered to France the coal to which she is entitled under the provisions of the Peace Treaty; and, if not, will he state the extent of such non-compliance?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I am asking the British Delegate to the Reparation Commission for the most recent particulars, and will communicate again with my hon. and gallant Friend.

Sir F. HALL: I will put down a question on this day week.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA PROTECTORATE.

INDIAN MEDICAL AND LEGAL DEGREES.

Mr. WATERSON: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that persons holding Indian university medical and law degrees, such as L.M. and S. and B.A.B.L., who are eligible to practise medicine and law, respectively, in India, are not allowed to so practise in British East Africa; and, if so, will he state why in British East Africa, where the Protectorate was first established with the object of safeguarding the interests of His Majesty's Indian subjects in that country, where Indian law is to-day administered, and where Indians preponderate both in point of numbers and vested interests, the said Indian university medical and law degrees are not recognised?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): I explained to the hon. Member in my answer to his question on the 24th of March that Indian medical degrees or diplomas are recognised in the East Africa Protectorate, provided that they entitle the holder to registration in the United Kingdom. Advocates who have
been admitted and are entitled to practise before one of the High Courts in British India are entitled to practise in the East African Courts.
The general question of the position of Indians in East Africa is under consideration between the Secretary of State and the Governor of the Protectorate.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOMBASA (DEEP-WATEE PIER).

Mr. WADDINGTON: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if it has yet been decided to construct a deep-water pier at Port Kilindini, Mombasa, to avoid the present method of all ships having to be loaded and unloaded by means of lighters; and if he is aware that, in addition to the extra freights caused by steamer delays, the cost of lighterage averages over 12s. per ton of cargo and is a serious charge upon East African producers and consumers?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I am fully aware of the necessity for improved facilities at Kilindini, and consideration of the construction of a deep-water wharf is well advanced.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA RAILWAY.

Mr. WADDINGTON: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the cotton crop of Uganda is this year expected to amount to over 50,000 bales, and that in consequence of the congestion on the Uganda Railway and the shortage of rolling stock it is doubtful if this crop will reach the coast during 1920; and will he state if any immediate steps will be taken to put the Uganda main line and rolling stock in an efficient state to cope with the present and increasing traffic, as the existing conditions are retarding extensions in cotton growing and other necessary commodities?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The equipment and administration of the Uganda Railway are receiving careful consideration, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the requirements of the Uganda cotton crop will not be overlooked.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON (REFORM OF CONSTITUTION).

Mr. SPOOR: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Governor of Ceylon has now arrived, and if he is accompanied by the Attorney-General of Ceylon; if they have been able to lay before the Colonial Office proposals for the reform of the Ceylon Constitution; if he intends to publish the proposals before final shape is given to them; and if he intends to give the House an opportunity to express its opinion upon the projected measure of reform before the nation is committed to it?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The Governor and the Attorney-General of Ceylon have arrived, but the Secretary of State has not yet had an opportunity of discussing the matter with them. I do not think it would be of advantage to publish the proposals in a provisional shape, and I am not in a position at present to give any undertaking as to the stage at which it will be most convenient to discuss them in this House.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we have a pledge that we shall be allowed to discuss the Constitution proposed for Ceylon before it is enacted by the Ceylon Legislature? Will it be laid on the Table of the House with an opportunity for discussion?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I think I can undertake that we shall not take any final steps without giving an opportunity for further discussion and giving proper information to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNICIPAL HOSPITALS.

Mr. LYLE: 19.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has given his consent to the establishment of a municipal hospital at Bradford; if so, for what special reason and on what conditions; whether this consent will be extended to other local authorities putting forward similar proposals; whether this step agrees with his policy as enunciated on 26th February, 1919, in this House, and elsewhere at other times; whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the policy of his Department in respect to voluntary hospitals; and whether, before sanctioning further hospitals supported out of
public funds, he will consider the position of voluntary hospitals, which have for years done invaluable public work, which are now hard pressed for funds to continue their efforts, and which are bound to be most prejudicially affected by competition on the part of organisations which will never experience financial stress in respect either of upkeep, maintenance, or administration.

Dr. ADDISON: I have sanctioned a scheme supported by all parties on the Bradford Council for the establishment of a municipal hospital, which appeared to me the only practicable method of providing the institutional accommodation necessary to meet the needs of the city. I see nothing in this decision inconsistent with the statement to which the hon. Members refers. As regards the last part of the question, I fully appreciate the value of the work done by the voluntary hospitals, and I am aware of the difficulties under which they are now labouring; but I am not yet in a position to make any definite statement.

Mr. LYLE: Does this mean that every other borough and town will be enabled to set up hospitals if it applies in the same way?

Dr. ADDISON: Pending further legislation which we are now preparing, I have to consider cases on their merits as they arise. This is the only way of meeting the necessities of this case that I decided as I did.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

Mr. CLOUGH: 21.
asked the Minister of Health whether his Department has now considered the disclosures affecting the health of the people in the Report upon the physical examination of men of military age by National Service medical boards; and whether he is bringing to the notice of the local authorities more especially mentioned the desirability of taking such reform as is possible in the improvement of conditions of housing and industry?

Dr. ADDISON: The Report to which the hon. Member refers is only part of a mass of evidence indicative of the need for a re-organisation and extension of public health services and for better
housing, but it is impossible within the limits of a reply to a Parliamentary question to set out all the steps to this end which have been taken or are in contemplation.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANÆSTHETICS (ADMINISTRATION).

Mr. GILBERT: 22.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the number of inquests held in London on persons who have died from anæsthetics, he can ask the Medical Research Committee to undertake a full inquiry into the whole question of anæsthetics and their administration with a view to saving life in the future; and whether, if this cannot be done, he will have the recommendations of the Home Office Departmental Committee of 1910 on the same subject put into practice?

Dr. ADDISON: In reply to the first part of the question, having regard to the-scientific investigations that have been-made in comparatively recent years, I am not at present convinced that there is need for a further investigation of the character that appears to be suggested, but will give the matter my careful consideration; the second part of the question has already been answered in replies to previous questions of the hon. Member, to which replies I have nothing now to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW SERVICE (HOLIDAYS).

Mr. CROOKS: 23.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been directed to an order issued by the superintendent of the West London school district to the staff, stating that no holidays-would be allowed on either Good Friday or Easter Monday, and that any member of the staff desiring to have time off must make up the same by overtime at the rate of one hour per day for 16 days; whether such order was issued by the direction of the managers; and whether he will inquire into this case with a view to formulating a general principle for the Poor Law service?

Dr. ADDISON: I have received a communication from the Poor Law Workers' Trade Union upon this subject, and am obtaining the observations of the managers of the West London school district.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

MILITARY CAMP, WIMBLEDON COMMON.

Colonel ASHLEY: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for War when the large acreage of Wimbledon Common, now used as a military camp, will be restored to the use of the public?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the FOREIGN OFFICE (Sir A. Williamson): I regret that it is not possible at present to give an indication of the date when the land in question will be surrendered.

Colonel ASHLEY: Why is it necessary to have a large military camp there?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am not aware of the reasons. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question, I will find out.

BRITISH SOLDIERS IN GERMANY (WIVES AND FAMILIES).

Major W. MURRAY: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the wives and families of soldiers serving in Germany who may wish to join their husbands and fathers are required to pay the whole cost of their journey from this country and to find and pay for accommodation in Germany at their own expense; and whether, looking to the impossibility of many women with young children undertaking such a journey, he is satisfied that an equitable system of leave has beep established in the Army in Germany and is being carried out in the ease of married men?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: One of the conditions under which wives and families' may join their husbands who are serving with the Army of Occupation in Germany is that they pay the whole cost of the journey from this country. At present they also have to find and pay for their accommodation in Germany, but the question of the provision of accommodation by the Government is now under consideration. As regards the last part of the question, I am afraid I can add nothing to the written answer given yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member.

OFFICERS MURDERED BY BOLSHEVISTS.

Mr. LYLE: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the statement to the effect that
two British officers were recently captured by the Bolshevists, brutally tortured, and then murdered; whether this statement has been verified; and if he will inform the House what is the latest information on the subject?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. As regards the last part, urgent inquiries are now being made to ascertain the truth of the statements.

Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Baronet aware that the Prime Minister assured the House that it was only on the understanding that these murders and outrages ceased that any negotiations would be entered into at all, and is it proposed to take any action in this matter at all?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: That is a question for the Prime Minister.

Mr. SHORT: Will the right hon. Baronet explain what these officers were doing in Russia at all?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

Mr. E. WOOD: 37.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he can state when it is proposed to introduce the Bill giving effect to the Government agricultural policy?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I regret the delay in connection with this Bill, but hope to be in a position to introduce it shortly.

Lieut.-Colonel A. C. MURRAY: Will this Bill apply to Scotland, or will there be a separate Bill?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That chiefly depends on the Scottish Members.

Mr. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the delay in introducing this measure is giving rise to great misunderstanding?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes. I am aware of that.

Mr. R. TERRELL: What is the cause of the delay?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

NATIONAL KITCHENS, LONDON.

Sir R. COOPER: 39.
asked the Food Controller whether the accounts of the three national kitchens in London which he controls, which are running on a self-supporting basis, include expenses on account of establishment charges, rent, and furniture; and is the food which is consumed charged up in these accounts at the current market prices which the general public has to pay?

Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. GILBERT: 44.
asked the Food Controller whether it is proposed to sell the National Kitchen Restaurant in New Bridge Street, E.C., which is now managed by his Department; if so, who are the buyers and what are the price and conditions of sale, and what is the reason for the disposal?

Mr. PARKER: The National Restaurant at New Bridge Street is being transferred to the Veterans' Commerce, Limited (a body representing ex-Service men), who will pay for the plant and loose equipment at valuation.
The reason for its disposal is that it is thought inadvisable for a Government Department to continue a commercial undertaking which involves entering into a lease over a period of years.

BACON.

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: 40.
asked the Food Controller whether, when bacon was re-controlled on the 9th August, 1919, the amount of bacon then requisitioned by the Ministry, bacon here and to arrive, was about 100,000 tons, at an average cost to the Ministry of about £180 per ton; whether several thousand tons of the Ministry's requisitioned bacon and hams have been sold by the authority of the Ministry for boiling down and other purposes at varying prices from £8 to £25 per ton; several thousand tons sold to the Continent at varying prices from £80 to £140 per ton; and whether allowances have had to be made on many thousands of tons of bacon and hams of anything varying from £5 to £50 per ton to get
these goods into circulation in this country?

Mr. PARKER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on this subject to the hon. Member for Plaistow on 22nd March.

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: 41.
asked whether at least 50 per cent. of the bacon and hams requisitioned by the Government on the 9th August last were consigned to this market at the packer's risk; and, if so, would the loss which the Ministry of Food have sustained on these goods have been the liability of the packers and not, as is now stated, the liability of the Ministry of Food.

Mr. PARKER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Negotiations as to the price to be paid for the requisitioned bacon are proceeding on the basis that the packer should bear such losses as would have been borne by him had the goods not been requisitioned.

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: 42.
asked whether on the 9th August, when the Ministry brought their requisitioning order in, the cost of hogs in Chicago was round about 23 cents per lb., and has since then been down to round about 13 cents per lb., and notwithstanding this reduction in the price of hogs the Ministry of Food have not seen fit to reduce the price of American bacon, hams, and lard.

Mr. PARKER: On 9th August, when control of bacon was resumed, the cost of hogs in Chicago was approximately 23 cents per lb. It fell as low as 13 cents for a short period when the Ministry of Food withheld buying orders, and was last week about 16½ cents per lb. Since the date of re-control the fall in exchange has varied from 9 per cent. to 25 per cent. Other costs borne by the Ministry, such as railway carriage to the retailer in this country, have also increased; and at the present time the principal cuts of bacon are being sold at or below the cost of replacement. In the circumstances it has not been possible to effect a general reduction in the price of bacon.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since bacon has been decontrolled the price has jumped up by about 50 per cent.?

Mr. PARKER: I daresay that is true; but that rise is not commensurate with
some other things that have jumped up—wages, for instance.

Mr. THORNE: Would it not be better to control it again?

MINISTRY OF FOOD.

Mr. ALFRED SHORT: 43.
asked whether instructions have been issued to food control committees to give three months' notice to their staffs; whether the Food Ministry is to be abolished; and, if so, when.

Mr. PARKER: Under the current Food Control Committees (Constitution) Order the term of office of members of these committees will expire on the 30th June, 1920. It is proposed after that date to substitute for the existing committees a reduced system of district food offices, and thereby to effect a substantial reduction in expenditure. As a precautionary measure the necessary warning notices to the staffs have been issued, though the services of a considerable number of the present staff will probably be retained. The question of the future of the Ministry of Food has been under the consideration of the Government, and it is hoped to make a statement shortly.

Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that statement will be made?

Mr. PARKER: I am afraid I cannot. The hon. Member had better put the question to the Minister of Food when he is in his place.

Mr. SHORT: Has the Leader of the House any information on the point?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No. I cannot give any time. It has been considered, and is still under the consideration of the Government.

Mr. SHORT: Is it the intention of the Government to abolish the Food Ministry?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Not at present.

FLOUR.

Mr. CAIRNS: 55.
asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the Newcastle-on-Tyne Co-operative Society has about 40,000 members; is he aware that they have been short of flour by 340 sacks, and that the largest ships go up into the higher reaches of the Tyne; and, if so, will
he see that the people of this area get a fair supply of flour?

Mr. PARKER: The Food Controller is not aware of any shortage of flour in Newcastle-on-Tyne. It is recognised, however, that anticipation of the recent advance in the retail price of flour led to an abnormal demand by customers in this part of the country who are to a large extent home-bakers. On inquiry the Food Controller is satisfied that all mills in the Northern and North-Eastern Areas, some of which are not at present working full time, have adequate supplies of wheat, and that any further demands for flour can be met.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Shotton mill has been closed down for several hours a day owing to the lack of a full supply, and can he see his way to keep this mill going on three shifts in order to meet the requirements of the country?

Mr. SWAN: Is the hon. Member aware that other flour mills are suffering in the same way and that shareholders of a cooperative society are only getting 80 per cent. of the flour which they got before the War, and will he take steps to have this regulation removed?

Mr. PARKER: I will bring the matter to the attention of the Food Controller.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO.

Mr. HOGGE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister what precedent there is for the appointment of a Minister without portfolio apart from war conditions; what duties the new Minister is to perform; what salary is to be attached to the office; and on what Vote it can be discussed?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The duties of my right hon. Friend will be of the same nature as those performed by General Smuts and my right hon. Friend the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow, and in the opinion of the Government the appointment is as necessary now as during the War.

Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the first part of the question as to precedent, and will he say what salary is attached to the office, and on what Vote it can be discussed? Is it not a fact that General Smuts and the
right hon. Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. Barnes) were appointed during the War, and that now we are under peace conditions the duties cannot be analagous?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already answered the last part of the question. In the opinion of the Government, the duties, though not strictly analagous, are as important and as necessary now as during the War. The salary is £5,000, and it is included in a Vote, which has been presented to the House, for Cabinet offices.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: When the conditions approximate more to normal peace conditions, will such an office as this be done away with?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Most certainly. It is perhaps rather difficult for the House to realise what is a fact that the pressure on Ministers is greater since the War. That is the necessity for, this appointment.

Sir R. COOPER: Is it not generally recognised that the Minister appointed to this office is one of the best administrators on the Treasury Bench, and could he not be better used at the head of one of the great spending Departments?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No. It is because I agree with my hon. Friend that this appointment has been made. It is due to the importance of the office that he has been appointed to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE (PRE-WAR PENSIONS).

Mr. WATERSON: 47.
asked the Prime Minister what the decision of the Government is towards granting an increased pension to police pensioners who were retired before the War?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Cabinet Committee which has been considering this question as affecting the case not only of police pensioners, but also of all other classes of State pensioners will, I understand, be in a position to report to the Government very shortly. As the House knows, the question is a very complicated one.

Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will be able to make an announcement?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I said shortly. That is not very definite. I am told that the report is nearly complete. That is all I can say.

Major O'NEILL: Has this Committee considered the cases of the Irish police pensioners for whom it is recognised there is a special case, seeing that in large parts of the country they are entirely unable to get any form of employment?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The whole question is being considered.

Mr. BILLING: Is anything being done for the specially hard cases pending the decision of the Committee?

Oral Answers to Questions — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT (FISHERMEN).

Mr. TICKLER: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of amending the Representation of the People Act so as to allow fishermen to be registered as absent voters annually, instead of their being required to register every six months?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The matter referred to is being considered by the Minister of Health in consultation with the other Departments concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (DISTURBANCES).

Lord ROBERT CECIL: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can give any information as to the recent disturbances in Palestine; how they arose; how long they lasted and what were the casualties; and what steps have been taken to prevent their recurrence?

Mr. BONAR LAW: On the morning of the 4th instant anti-Jewish riots occurred in Jerusalem. These seem to have been caused by a purely religious procession assuming a political nature owing to inflammatory speeches. It became necessary to reinforce the police by military assistance. The police are believed to have sided with their co-religionists, and were withdrawn and disarmed.

On the 5th rioting recommenced in the city.

On the 6th the situation was unchanged.

The casualties reported, including minor wounded not requiring treatment, are as follows:—


Two killed.
186 wounded.

The military now control the city, and the latest reports show that, while racial feeling is still strong, no recent acts of violence have occurred.

Lord R. CECIL: Does the answer mean that the riots continued for three days? If so, will an inquiry be held as to how they were allowed to continue so long, as there was a considerable British force?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It was for two days I gathered. The exact words in the answer which I have given do say "on the 6th the situation was unchanged." I thought it meant that things had returned to the normal. It is at least ambiguous.

Colonel ASHLEY: What steps have been taken to protect the Jews in their own country, in the other towns in Palestine, from attacks such as this?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, meantime responsibility for Palestine is on General Allenby, and I am sure that he is taking all proper steps.

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSING BILL.

Lieut-Colonel POWNALL: 53.
asked the Lord Privy Seal when it is intended to introduce the Licensing Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot at present name a date.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the Liquor Control Board going to remain in existence until the Licensing Bill passes through the House of Commons, or is it intended to dissolve it, because everyone is anxious that it should be dissolved?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No. I do not think that everyone is anxious.

Mr. THORNE: Well, I do.

Mr. BONAR LAW: This is not a subject which can be dealt with by question and answer. It was dealt with very fully by the Minister for Education in his speech the other day.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

PRE-WAR SERVICE PENSIONS.

Colonel ASHLEY: 35.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will consider an extension of the terms of Army Order 325, of 1919, so that the pre-War service pensions of men who have served during the War with the Colonial and Dominion Forces may be revised under the increased rates, in view of the fact that very great hardship is involved to these men, who have given satisfactory military service in defence of this country, and that their case compares unfavourably with that of the men of the Navy, whose pre-War pensions are reassessed if they served in a military capacity with any force during the War; and whether he will further consider the question of permitting men who served during the War with the overseas forces to count such service, together with pre-War service in the British Army, in order to complete the required time to qualify for long-service pension?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I understand that the re-assessment of naval pensions is limited to certain cases which have no parallel in the Army. I am afraid I can hold out no hope of any extension of the existing rules.

TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.

Colonel ASHLEY: 56.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will inquire into and take steps to prevent the hardship resulting from the interpretation of the Royal Warrant as set out in the revised Circular 204, winch provides that treatment allowances were not intended to be granted in cases where the disability would ordinarily involve recurrent incapacity for short periods, on the ground that the pension is an assessment of the average disablement over the currency of the award, seeing that this interpretation not only curtails the privileges of disabled men in regard to treatment allowance under Article 6 of the Royal Warrant, but also involves particular hardship in the case of a man pensioned at the scheduled rate for a specific injury, or a man earning wages in excess of the official maximum upon which the partial disablement pension has been assessed?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I am unable to agree that hardship has resulted from the interpretation of the Warrant as set out in Circular 204. Treatment Allowances under Article 6 are confined to cases where the Ministry has certified that a man should undergo a course of treatment, and is, in consequence, rendered unable to support himself. They are not given as compensation for incapacity, whether total or partial, resulting from disablement. The provision of such compensation is the function of the Disablement Pension. If my hon. and gallant Friend is questioning the principle of average assessment, I may, perhaps, remind him that the only alternative is repeated re-boarding at short intervals—a process which would be costly to the State and intolerable to the disabled men.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABINGDON RIVER FRONT.

Captain TERRELL: 57.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if his Department is the owner of some hundreds of tons of ash timber now piled up on the river front at Abingdon, some of which has been there for about two years; and whether, in view of the fact that it occupies two acres used by the villagers, their children, and visitors, he can arrange to have it removed without delay?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. The timber, which is stacked on private land at Clifton Hampden, near Abingdon, by arrangement with the landowner, has now been sold, and consigning instructions are awaited from the purchasers.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Mr. HAYDAY: 58.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if he will state how many members of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) were present at the meeting when the Order was made of the 2nd February last prohibiting the formation of any clubs in Carlisle without the sanction of the Board?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): I am afraid that I can add
nothing to previous answers on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL HOTEL, EASTBOURNE (REGISTRATION).

Mr. GWYNNE: 59.
asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the Registrar of Companies acts on any rules or principles in using the wide discretion which he at present exercises in consenting or refusing to register companies; if so, what these principles are, seeing that he has refused to register the Imperial Hotel, Eastbourne, Limited, on the grounds that this company has no justification for including such words in its title, while such companies as the Imperial and Foreign Corporation, the Imperial and General Securities, the Imperial Cold Storage, the Imperial Direct Line, the Imperial London Hotels, the Imperial Paper Mills, the Imperial Tobacco Company, and the Imperial and Canada Company have all been registered since this discretion was placed in his hand; whether any of the latter are under Royal patronage or have connection with the Government; and, if so, which?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am consulting with the Registrar of Companies in this matter, and will shortly communicate again with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

FRUIT AND VEGETABLES.

Captain BOWYER: 60.
asked the Minster of Transport whether he has received from the National Federation of Fruit and Potato Traders' Association a resolution to the effect that where two or more assignments of produce are despatched on the same day from one station by different senders to one consignee the consignments should be aggregated and charged at the lowest rate applicable to the total quantity; and whether he will state whether he is prepared to adopt this scheme?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): The Resolution referred to has been received and transmitted to the railway companies. It is always open to the senders to aggregate their produce and hand it to the railway companies as one consignment, provided that it is all
brought into the sending station at the same time, that it is forwarded to one consignee, and that the charges are paid by one person.

Captain BOWYER: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the necessity of ensuring a constant and full supply of fresh fruit and vegetables to the public, he will take steps to inaugurate at scheduled times an express goods train service for perishable foodstuffs to all the markets in the United Kingdom; whether he is aware of the stimulus this would have on the production of food of this type in this country; and whether, in the event of this scheme being adopted, he will make arrangements for empties, necessary for the carriage of foodstuffs, to be taken also on this express goods service?

Mr. NEAL: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely on the 23rd February.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE ACCOMMODATION, ASHINGTON.

Mr. CAIRNS: 62.
asked the Postmaster-'General whether he is aware that the General Post Office for Ashington, Northumberland, with a population of 31,500, is situated in a back street, only accessible by descending steep and dangerous gradients; and whether, seeing that this Post Office is hopelessly inadequate in size and arrangement for the needs of the district, he will give this matter his attention?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): As a result of the resignation of the Sub-Postmaster it was necessary to provide a combination of Army Huts for the accommodation of the Post Office at very short notice. On the information at present available, it would appear that the building, although admittedly of a temporary character, is adequate to the requirements, and that the position of the site, which was the only one available, is central, although its frontage is on a side street. I was not aware of the difficulties of access to which the hon. Member draws attention, but I am having inquiry made on the
subject. I may add that the question of permanent accommodation for the Post Office at Ashington is under consideration, but I fear that it will not be possible to make such provision for some time.

Mr CAIRNS: When will the consideration materialise?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I could not say at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

LORD MAYOR OF CORK (MURDER).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 63.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Government have proofs that the late Alderman Thomas MacCurtain, Lord Mayor of Cork, was murdered by a secret society; and, if so, why this evidence has not been brought forward at the coroner's inquest on the deceased?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): It must be obvious to my hon. and gallant Friend that I cannot give the information for which he asks.

PRISONERS' TREATMENT.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether he has any information with regard to the conditions in Mountjoy Prison, and any statement to make as to the decision to which the Government may have come?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have just received the following telegram from the Irish Government.
"Hunger strike. The following Minute was issued this morning to Prisons Board:
'There are three classes of prisoners at present in Mountjoy Prison: (1) prisoners who have been tried either before (a) a jury, (b) a court-martial, or (c) summarily, and have been convicted. (2) Prisoners who have been arrested and have (a) been before a magistrate and have had depositions taken, (b) been before a magistrate and remanded for the purpose of having depositions taken or for trial summarily. (3) Persons who have been arrested or detained under order of the Competent Military Authority.
'The first class are not entitled to ameliorative treatment except under the rules dated the 22nd November, 1949. The second class are and always have been and will be treated as untried prisoners. In all the circumstances of
the case the Irish Government has decided that the third class will in future be given, ameliorative treatment from the date of their arrest until the date of their conviction.'

Mr. MacVEAGH: Does "ameliorative treatment" mean that they will be treated as first-class misdemeanants?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know exactly what it means, but it does mean that they will be treated in a way quite different both from convicted prisoners and untried prisoners.

CONSTABLE MURDERED.

Lord R. CECIL: May I ask the Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can say that it is true that another policeman has been shot in the streets of Dublin this morning, and, if so, can he throw any light on the event?

Mr. HENRY: I regret to say that a constable was shot in Camden Street at 9.30 this morning, on his way from his house to the police station. Nobody has been made amenable.

Lord R. CECIL: How many were engaged in the crime?

Mr. HENRY: My information is that when the inhabitants of the houses came out there was no one on the street. The idea is that the man responsible for the murder disappeared into a house at once.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION ACT.

Mr. HURD: 65.
asked the Home Secretary what County Councils have taken advantage of the Act of 1912 to prevent the disfiguring of natural beauties of landscape by hoarding advertisements; and whether, now that the War interval is at an end, he will remind those Councils who have taken no action of the powers conferred upon them by Parliament?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): I presume the hon. Member refers to the Advertisements Regulation Act, 1907. Under this Act 26 counties have made bye-laws, and I will have a list of them sent to the hon. Member. The matter is one in which the initiative should be taken locally, and the Home
Secretary does not think it would be desirable for the Government to press local authorities to make bye-laws which were not demanded by local feeling.

Oral Answers to Questions — COPPER COINS (SHORTAGE).

Mr. GILBERT: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the shortage of copper coins in certain districts; whether he is aware of the hindrance to trade amongst small shopkeepers this causes; whether he can instruct the Mint to issue more copper coinage; and can he state if there has been any increased issue of the same during recent months?

Mr. BALDWIN: Special steps have been taken to increase the output of copper coin, which reached a value of over £460,000 in the last nine months as against a yearly average of £179,000 only in the 15 years ended December, 1915.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICAN WAR (MINES CONTRIBUTION).

Mr. SITCH: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any definite steps were ever taken to give Governmental sanction and effect to the proposal, made in 1905, that the sum of £30,000,000 of the revenue of the mining industry in South Africa benefiting by the annexation of the Orange Free State and Boer Republic territories to the British Empire should be earmarked as a contribution towards the cost of the war which resulted in that annexation; and, if so, whether any part of that sum has yet been or ever will be paid?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that it was proposed in 1903 that the South African mining industry should make this contribution to the expenses of the South African War. He will find the facts set out in the Blue Book, Cd. 1895 of 1904. The proposal was one for a Transvaal Government loan of £30,000,000, of which certain mine owners undertook under certain conditions to underwrite £10,000,000. The proposal was not carried into effect.

Mr. SHORT: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the proposal was not carried into effect?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I think it was realised by common consent that when responsible government was given to the Transvaal it was no longer desirable for the Imperial Government to press for it.

Mr. SHORT: Why was the proposal made at the time if it was not desirable?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Economic circumstances and prospects seemed to be very different in 1903 from what they were actually found to be three or four years later.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTORAL LAW REFORM.

GOVERNMENT BILL.

Major MORRISON-BELL: (by Private Notice)asked the Minister Of Health whether he was in a position to state what steps the Government intended to take to eliminate the long period elapsing between the casting of the votes at an election and the declaration of the poll?

Dr. ADDISON: The Government have decided to bring in a Bill for abolishing the interval between the poll and the counting of the votes. They will propose that the system of voting by post should be limited to the United Kingdom, and that proxy voting should be permitted in all other areas. Some slight modifications of the present minimum periods between the receipt of the writ and the poll may be necessary in the case of by-elections. The Bill is in preparation, and I hope to be in a position to introduce it at an early date.

Lieut.-Colonel A. C. MURRAY: Will that include a system of alternative voting?

Mr. W. THORNE: When the proposals have been drafted I take it they will include provisions for the soldiers and sailors to have the same opportunities of voting as they have now?

Dr. ADDISON: We are trying to secure that end.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House for information with regard to the Notice of Motion standing in his name relating to the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule? What urgency is there for resuming so late as eleven o'clock the discussion on the Treaties of Peace with Austria and Bulgaria, on the assumption that it is not concluded by 8.15? It is quite obvious that the Motion down for 8.15 in all probability will run right up to eleven o'clock.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure the House will realise the importance of getting this through—even those who hold different views on the subject. It is obvious that nothing is gained and much is lost by delay. Our idea in moving this Motion is the hope that a very short time after eleven o'clock might enable us to conclude. If we find that there is a general disposition in the House to continue the Debate further we shall reluctantly have to make other arrangements.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: With reference to the Electricity Supply Bill, I understand there is no likelihood of its being reached to-day? The Bill was not available to Members up to a late hour last night, and is not ready even now. Members of the House should have at least a week to study the Bill before the Second Reading is taken.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite agree that Members ought to have a reasonable time. There is no intention of taking this Bill to-day.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the proceedings on the Treaties of Peace (Austria and Bulgaria) Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

The House divided: Ayes, 171: Noes, 39.

Division No. 83.]
AYES.
[3.40 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Barlow, Sir Montague
Brackenbury, Captain H. L.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Barnett, Major R. W.
Briggs, Harold


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Barnston, Major Harry
Brittain, Sir Harry


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Bruton, Sir James


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquzy)


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Campbell, J. D. G.


Astor, Viscountess
Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Casey, T. W.


Baird, John Lawrence
Borwick, Major G. O.
Cautley, Henry S.


Baldwin, Stanley
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Chadwick, R. Burton


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cheyne, Sir William Watson


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Remnant, Colonel Sir James F.


Clough, Robert
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rendall, Athelstan


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jameson, J. Gordon
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Jephcott, A. R.
Rodger, A. K.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Johnstone, Joseph
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Kellaway, Frederick George
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Kenyon, Barnet
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Seager, Sir William


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Seddon, J. A.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Dawes, James Arthur
Lloyd, George Butler
Simm, M. T.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lonsdale, James Rolston
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Stanton, Charles B.


Edge, Captain William
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Stevens, Marshall


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Sturrock, J. Leng


Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)
Macmaster, Donald
Sugden, W. H.


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Sutherland, Sir William


Fell, Sir Arthur
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Fildes, Henry
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Macquisten, F. A.
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Mallalieu, F. W.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Gardiner, James
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Molson, Major John Eisdale
Tickler, Thomas George


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Morrison-Bell. Major A. C.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Glyn, Major Ralph
Mount, William Arthur
Tryon, Major George Clement


Goff, Sir R. Park
Murchison, C. K.
Wallace, J.


Grant, James A.
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Wason, John Cathcart


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Neal, Arthur
Weston, Colonel John W.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Hailwood, Augustine
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Hancock, John George
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Parker, James
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pearce, Sir William
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Younger, Sir George


Houston, Robert P.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque



Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hurd, Percy A.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Rae, H. Norman
 Ward.


Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)



NOES.


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Hayday, Arthur
Rose, Frank H.


Briant, Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Royce, William Stapleton


Cairns, John
Irving, Dan
Sexton, James


Crooks, Rt. Hon. William
Lawson, John J.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Lunn, William
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Spoor, B. G.


Finney, Samuel
Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Swan, J. E.


Galbraith, Samuel
Myers, Thomas
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Glanville, Harold James
Mills, John Edmund
Tootill, Robert


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hallas, Eldred
Robertson, John
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Waterson.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

EDUCATION.

On this day four weeks, to call attention to certain defects in the system of education in this country, and to move a Resolution.—[Captain Loseby.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

On this day four weeks, to call attention to the hours of sitting of this House, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. J. Guest.]

POOR LAW REFORM.

On this day four weeks, to call attention to the question of Poor Law Reform, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Myers.]

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Mount to act as Chairman
of Standing Committee A (in respect of the National Health Insurance Bill) in place of Mr. John William Wilson; Mr. Brace to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the County Councils Association Expenses (Amendment) Bill, the Tramways (Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill, the Savings Banks Bill, and the Imperial War Museum Bill); and Sir Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Poor Scotch Litigants (Expenses) Bill and the House Letting and Bating (Scotland) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — TREATIES OF PEACE (AUSTRIA AND BULGARIA) BILL.

Order for Second Heading read.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This is a Bill for carrying into effect the Treaties of Peace between His Majesty and certain other Powers, and they are, as the House is aware, the Austrian and the Bulgarian Treaties. The House will also be aware that the Bill itself calls for no detailed examination by the House or by the Minister in charge of it. It is merely concerned with investing His Majesty with the powers necessary for carrying out the business that follows the ratification of peace. When this Bill has been passed by Parliament and by His Majesty, then the Treaties of Peace with Austria and Bulgaria will have been ratified so far as this country is concerned. I think the House will pardon me if I do not, in the very brief address that I propose to make, go into any very great detail in connection with these Treaties. Certain specific points I shall venture to touch upon, but to examine, chapter by chapter and article by article, these two great documents, I am sure, would not meet with the wishes of the House and in any case would be a work of supererogation, for the House is aware that, although we have the power to reject these Treaties, we have not the power to amend them in detail I would venture at the outset of my statement very humbly and respectfully to warn the House against a certain attitude of mind that has been adopted very largely in regarding the Peace Treaties with our former enemies. This attitude has been expressed with singular literary skill by Mr. Keynes in his well-known book on the Peace Conference in Paris, a book which it is possible to road with great pleasure, although it is not always necessary to agree with Mr. Keynes' views. The attitude I indicate amounts to this: it is the attitude of a man who, surveying the several Peace Treaties so far as they have now been drafted, seems to assume that if any of these Treaties' fall short of what he thinks
is desirable, the fault lies altogether with the high contracting parties who have acted for the Allies.
That to me is to stand the situation on its head. We were not responsible for the War; we were not responsible for the devastation following from the War. The Allied Powers are not responsible for the deplorable economic situation in Central Europe. It is no fault of ours if the ancient Empire of Austria has crumbled into its component parts. The task that was set the Plenipotentiaries in Paris was one of superlative difficulty, especially in relation to the Austrian Treaty. I would venture to say again that we should regard this situation from the point of view of men who, through no fault of their own, had been confronted with enormous political and economic difficulties and, in my judgment, have made an exceedingly good job of the very refractory materials they have had to handle. I say with regard to the Austrian Treaty that we should bear in mind that the Peace Conference had to deal there with a conglomerate State, comprising no less than ten different races and ten different languages. If there are any defects in the Austrian Peace Treaty, I repeat they are not to be laid to the charge of the statesmen who have sought to resolve those difficulties, but they belong to the inherent difficulties of the case and to the misdemeanours of those statesmen in the enemy countries who have brought their countries to ruin. I go so far and I am so bold as to claim for the Austrian Peace Treaty that it is an eminently satisfactory one in the peculiarly difficult circumstances of the Austrian case. I will go further, and I will claim that in some respects it is a lenient and even an indulgent treaty.

4.0 P.M.

An Amendment to reject this Bill appears on the Paper to-day. I shall be keenly interested to hear the views of those hon. Friends of mine who have taken upon themselves to move the rejection of the Bill. In regard to Austria, I would ask them what are the specific parts of the Treaty to which they take exception, and, again, what constructive suggestions would they have been able to make had they had a hand in framing the Treaty themselves? There has been in the Press and elsewhere much reference to the alleged mutilated state of German Austria. How could the dismemberment of the Austrian Empire have been
avoided? It is well known to every Member of this House that in long past years men looked forward with the gravest apprehension to the break-up of the Austrian Empire, not because merely they foresaw the enormous European troubles that might arise from it, but because they also knew of the political troubles that must necessarily follow from the fact that so many of the component parts of the Austrian Empire were anxious to set up political houses of their own. Is it to be suggested that an enforced union, let me say, between Hungary, Czecho-Slovakia, and German Austria should have been continued and maintained by the Peace Conference in Paris? It is not through any remissness on the part of the Peace Conference that the Austrian Empire proper is reduced to so small a fragment of what it was formerly. It is due to the fact that so many of these nationalities and peoples have desired to cut themselves adrift from German Austria. How could the Peace Conference have done otherwise than have helped them to give effect to their wishes? The drawing of the boundaries must have been a task of immense difficulty, and the House is aware that in some minor particulars it is not even yet definitely settled. I do not say that inconveniences and hardships have not been continued. This is unavoidable where populations have freely intermingled and where defensive frontiers have needed to be established. The House perhaps will allow me to touch upon one or two questions which concern the frontiers of the German-Austrian State. I understand it to be alleged—in fact it is suggested in the Amendment—that in the Austrian Treaty, and, indeed, in the Bulgarian Treaty, the principle of self-determination is rudely violated. I venture to think that that charge has been greatly and gravely over-stated. To which of the geographical boundaries is that charge meant to apply? Is it in the Tyrol. Here, undoubtedly, a German population numbering, I am told, some 250,000 people have been included within the new frontier of Italy. I would venture to suggest to the House that, great as is the principle of self-determination—and there is no warmer supporter of that principle in this House than I am myself
—there is another principle, and it is that of strategic necessity. I think my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Wedgwood) will find that when we deal with our own affairs we very strictly adhere to the principle of strategic necessity.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Ireland.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Indeed, I think we shall find when we come to deal with Ireland that the question of strategic necessity does to some extent affect our determination of the question of the Government of Ireland. Is it on the Hungarian border that the complaint arises? I speak with diffidence and reserve on matters which really are only fully familiar to experts or to people who have lived in those countries, but I am told in regard to the population occupying the former Hungarian Western territory that they are predominantly German. Is it in Klagenfurt? The House is aware that in that debatable area a plebiscite is about to be held. Is it on the side of Czechoslovakia? How could the State of Czecho-Slovakia ever have been established if minute and meticulous regard had been had to the principle of self-determination in regard to the various elements of that population? I think it is agreed that the German population coming under the new State of Czecho-Slovakia is pretty well content with its position. I am sure that it is true that it could not have been withdrawn from that State without rendering the establishment of the State impossible. I say nothing of the Jugo-Slav frontier. The situation in that region, as the House is well aware, is much too delicate still for profitable discussion. But in regard to all these questions we can assure ourselves, when we regard the statesmen from all the Allied countries who have patiently and minutely examined them, and most of whom, be it observed, had no special national interest to serve in the rearrangement of German-Austrian territories, that they gave the fullest consideration to every point in an admittedly intensely difficult problem.
I have said that in some respects this is a lenient and even an indulgent Treaty. I would ask those Members of the House who have not done so to look, for in-
stance, at Article 222. Here it is laid down that if the former enemy States of Austria-Hungary and Bohemia desire to enter into free trade relations the one with the other the Allied Powers will not claim similar trading facilities. I think you will have to search far in the records of international agreements for so large and generous a concession to a former enemy population. Again, hon. Members might study carefully Article 224. It is true that under the terms of the Treaty German-Austria loses the greater part of her coal area, not through any fault of remissness on the part of the Peace Conference, but because those coal areas lie to the largest extent within the areas dominated by other populations who have sought and have found liberty for themselves. If the Clause be examined, it will be found that the Peace Conference went to the very greatest trouble in providing for the necessities of Austria with regard to coal. The main body of criticisms with regard to the Austrian Treaty, however, has been directed to Article 88. It is that Article which forbids German-Austria, except under circumstances which have not yet arisen, to ally herself with another Power. It may be convenient for Members who have not a copy of the Treaty with them if I read the actual words—
The independence of Austria is inalienable otherwise than with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations. Consequently, Austria undertakes, in the absence of the consent of the said Council, to abstain from any act which might directly or indirectly, or by any means whatever, compromise her independence, particularly, and until her admission to membership of the League of Nations, by participation in the affairs of another Power.
There, again, I shall be much interested to hear the adverse criticisms, if any are offered on this Clause.

Lord R. CECIL: Might I ask what is meant by the words "participation in the affairs of another Power"?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should say it means alliance or league with some other Power, but my Noble Friend is far more familiar with the deliberations in Paris than I am. He is well aware that I myself was not present throughout the proceedings and am not fully aware of all the reasons that underlie the language used. I should have thought, however, that the Clause meant to imply in general
that German-Austria is not to enter into league with or become part of some other foreign State.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does it prevent a treaty of commerce with Germany?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The House, I am sure, will agree with me that I ought to be very diffident in expressing any opinion or giving interpretations.

Mr. HOGGE: Does not the British Government know what they mean?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: If my Noble Friend occupied my position, I think he would be more careful even than I myself in declining to give any definitions which might possibly be quoted as authoritative on future occasions

Mr. HOGGE: This afternoon we are being asked to agree to this Treaty. My hon. Friend, however uninformed he may be according to his own speech, ought to be put in possession of the definition of those terms by the Leader of the House, for example, so that he can tell the House what they mean if they ask us to agree to them.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) will participate in the Debate later. He is more familiar with the proceedings in Paris than I am, and no doubt he will be able to satisfy my hon. Friend opposite and my Noble Friend behind me. It is alleged in some quarters that the Reparation Clauses are too severe. There, again, I invite the House, before attaching the fullest importance to criticisms of that kind, to refer to the Clauses in the Treaty which prescribe what the Reparation Commission can do by way of amelioration. Our own attitude towards reparation in Austria is sufficiently indicated by the fact that Sir William Goode, whose name is familiar to all of us as British representative and director for the relief of Europe, has been appointed special British representative on the Austian Section of the Reparation Commission. I might perhaps venture to remind the House again of a point that is too often overlooked. Since the conclusion of the War, the Powers of Europe and the Allied Powers in general have acted towards their former enemies with a magnanimity that surely has no parallel in the history of wars. In the relief of Europe, beginning with the work of Mr.
Hoover, no less than 1,000,000,000 dollars have been spent in friendly, allied, and in enemy countries, and it is reckoned by Mr. Hoover himself that not more than 320,000,000 dollars of that vast disbursement is recoverable or ever will be repaid, and the House knows that here there is no feeling of animosity against our former enemies in Austria.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Aliens Bill.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: We need not go back to that, surely, to-day. I am speaking of a generally accepted fact, that there is not in this country any feeling of bitter animosity as against the people of German Austria, and certainly there is no feeling of that kind on their part. It is notorious that we, with other allies, are almost embarrassingly popular in the old German-Austria kingdom. I will touch more briefly on the Bulgarian Treaty. I do not understand it to be complained that the indemnity that has been demanded of Bulgaria is excessive, or that the method of its exaction is needlessly embarrassing or inequitable. The sum has been fixed at some £90,000,000 in gold, and it surely should not be beyond the powers of Bulgaria to discharge this liability in the prescribed period of 37 years. Again, in regard to this comparatively modest requirement the Reparation Commission is given large powers of discretion. Nor do I understand it is seriously contended that Bulgaria has been treated with hardship in regard to her territorial possessions.

Lord R. CEGIL: May I ask one question merely of explanation, if it is possible for my hon. Friend to give me an answer? Can he tell me what is the sum that is transferred to the allied powers under Article 124 of the Treaty, under which, as I understand it, the debts of Bulgaria to the German powers are transferred to the Allies? Of course, that makes a considerable difference in favour of Bulgaria, because it means that she is free from those debts in consideration of her paying £90,000,000 to the allied powers. I should be glad if my hon. Friend could give me any indication of what is the amount involved in that transfer.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am afraid I do not carry it in my head, but in the course of the Debate I shall be able to inform
my Noble Friend. Let me, for a moment, refer to the frontier of Bulgaria with Jugo-Slavia. As I understand, the adjustments made there are territorially not extensive, and are meant to safeguard—and this is their only object—the vitally necessary railway communications between Nish and Salonika. It will be surely not an unreasonable proposition that the Jugo-Slav State, subject as it has been in former days to repeated attacks by Bulgaria, should be in a position to protect one of the main railway arteries of that kingdom, and it is exceedingly doubtful whether the population in that district ardently desire to be associated with the Bulgarian State. As regards Western Thrace, Bulgaria, as I understand the situation, has no claims whatever on the ground of population. I think I am right in saying that the majority of the inhabitants are Turkish. There is a large Greek minority, and there is no reason to suppose that the Turkish population have any desire to be joined to the Bulgarian people. By far the most important Article in the Treaty, to my mind, is that which relates to the access of the Bulgarian State to the Ægean, and I would, in this connection, if I may, refer the House to Article 48, I think it is, of the Bulgarian Treaty that is concerned in this matter. The House is also aware that this particular point has not yet been definitely settled.
For the rest, there are satisfactory indications that Bulgaria is reconciling herself to the terms of the Treaty, and I am glad to take this opportunity of stating with what pleasure His Majesty's Government have observed that the new Prime Minister, M. Stamboliski, has boldly set to work to cleanse Bulgarian public life from the corrupt influences which centred round the, Court of the ex-King Ferdinand. It is the earnest desire of His Majesty's Government that Bulgarian policy may systematically adhere to this course, and by so doing pave the way towards a permanent reconciliation with her neighbours and the foundation of an enduring peace in the Balkans. As I have said, I have not dealt at length or in detail with these two important documents. They are before the House for its acceptance. It is with the greatest confidence that I invite the House to proceed with all convenient despatch to the passing of this Bill. If Members will turn to the lists of signatories to the two instruments with
which we are to-day concerned, they will find among them the representations of all the Allied Powers that have borne the almost insupportable burdens of the recent War. These are the names of victorious powers—the names of powers that, in spite of victory, gained nothing by the War commensurate with their sacrifices. If every farthing of the material cost of the War were exacted by the victors, yet would they be poorly compensated for their immeasurable losses. I claim that in these Treaties there is no suggestion of a Carthaginian peace. Indeed, it will be found on careful consideration that in these Treaties, as in the case of the German Treaty, it is sometimes the victors who have suffered the greatest measure of material loss.
The Amendment on the Paper invites the House to reject the Bill. I imagine that the hon. Members in charge of the Amendment would be no less distressed than other Members of the House if they proved successful in their attack. It is to me inconceivable that this House and this Parliament should deliberately destroy so important a part of the work of the Peace Conference. It has been a wearisome task to draft these Treaties, and in that work statesmen from all the Allied counties have laboured unceasingly for weeks and months. They have done so, I venture to affirm, in no spirit of tyranny or revenge. Indeed, I do not hesitate to say that on no occasion in the history of mankind has so much painful care been exercised to secure that Peace Treaties should carry with them no legacies of unappeasable resentment. Two main purposes run through these Treaties. The first is the just punishment of wrongdoing incalculable in its moral and economic effects. The second is the prevention, so far as it may be humanly possible, of similar wrongdoing in future years. As regards the latter purpose, our best hope lies in the League of Nations. The text of the Covenant of the League stands in the forefront of these Treaties, as it does in the case of the German Treaty. If I may put this point, my own official work during the last year and more confirms me in my view that the highest and best opinion of civilised mankind, as enlisted in the League of Nations, is our surest guarantee for the permanence of such Treaties, as I have the honour to submit to the House for its sanction and, as I trust, for its unanimous approval.

Mr. ASQUITH: I should like to be allowed to congratulate my hon. Friend on the admirable manner in which he has discharged a particularly difficult and delicate task. It is so easy to say too much, and I think he has kept the golden mean between too much and too little in a manner worthy of an old Parliamentarian. I should like—and I am sure I shall be expressing the opinion of the whole House—to re-echo the admirable admonition with which he concluded his speech, that the best hope, and indeed the only hope, for the prevention of the recurrence of the terrible evils which have led to these Treaties is in the prompt and effective operation of the League of Nations, which represents and commands the confidence of the whole civilised world. The two Treaties which are referred to in this Hill are dated, the Austrian one, I think, as far back as September of last year, and the Bulgarian Treaty at the end of November. I think it is to be regretted that there has been such a long interval in the process of ratification—whatever may be said of the merits or demerits of these instruments themselves—because we must all be painfully aware that every month's delay, with the uncertainties which delay necessarily carries in its train, have tended to aggravate rather than to cure both the political and the economic chaos which prevails in Central Europe. It is, therefore, with the greatest gratification that we find that period of suspense has come to an end, and whatever criticism can be made on the Treaties there will no longer be any risk of people in that part of the world being in doubt as to their immediate future.
In regard to the Bulgarian Treaty, which is the less important of the two, I have very few words to say. It is a tragic illustration of the Nemesis which, in the ease of small as well as of great States, always sooner or later attends a shortsighted and a selfish policy. No new State ever started its life under better auspices than Bulgaria. Although a new State it had great traditions. It was, and is, inhabited by one of the most virile and progressive populations in the East of Europe. It was with the universal goodwill of Christian Europe that it was emancipated from the rule of the Turk. Its course for a considerable number of years was one of almost uninterrupted pros-
perity. Almost immediately it absorbed Eastern Rumelia. In the course of time, by a series of events which culminated in the Balkan Wars of 1912–13, it extended its boundaries as far, at one moment, as the Enos-Media line. That extension was subsequently curtailed in favour of Turkey by the Treaty of Bucharest, 1913. When the War broke out in 1914, Bulgaria was in the position of an enlarged and prosperous State. There was no State in Europe which had less reason to join the Central Powers, and Turkey then had Bulgaria. It was an act without justification, excuse or pretext.
For a year after the War broke out Bulgaria's attitude was that of a State waiting on Providence—and I use the word Providence in a non-committal sense—waiting to see, to use the vulgar phrase, how the cat would jump. At last, under the evil inspiration of a bad King—there is no good mincing words—she joined the Central Powers and Turkey at a very critical moment in the fortunes of the War. If Bulgaria had either remained neutral, still more if Bulgaria had taken the course she ought to have taken and joined those who were responsible for her original emancipation and constitution as a State, the supply from Germany to Turkey of munitions of war, without which Turkey would not have been able to withstand our operations in the Dardanelles, would never have taken place; Bulgaria bears a very heavy load of responsibility for the prolongation of the War and all the sufferings and evils which it involved. The measure of her mistake is to be found in a comparison with her area as it was when the War broke out, and the shrunken dimensions of her frontiers as they are exhibited in the map annexed to this Treaty. I cannot, therefore, say, even if I were disposed to be hypercritical, that the Powers have dealt harshly with Bulgaria. I do not think they have. At the same time—my hon. Friend opposite has already called attention to it—it is no part, and ought not to be any part, of our policy, or the policy of any of the Allied or associated Powers permanently to humiliate or impoverish Bulgaria. On the contrary, it ought to be our aim to do what we can to facilitate her reinstatement on sound lines of policy and of administration. I trust that prompt and
practical effect will be given to the undertaking which is contained in Article 48 of the Treaty on the part of the Allied and Associated Powers to ensure an economic outlet to Bulgaria in the Ægean Sea, for within the frontiers as laid down by the Treaty, Bulgaria is landlocked.

Lord R. CECIL: There is the Black Sea?

Mr. ASQUITH: I am referring to the Ægean. I am sure it is of great importance, not only to her future developments, but to that of the whole of the Balkan States, that these economic outlets should be provided in an effective form without avoidable delay. That, I think, is all I have to say upon the Bulgarian Treaty.
I come now to the Treaty with Austria, upon which it is impossible, notwithstanding the very plausible and persuasive argument of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, to pass a wholly favourable judgment. I need not say that I have no temptation or disposition to extenuate the part played by Austria in the War. She was really the protagonist in the struggle. But for her the War had never broken out; at any rate, it might have been postponed for years, and perhaps entirely averted. We must never forget that. It would be idle to minimise her responsibility for the disasters and widespread consequences which have ensued. Nor do I in the least dispute the proposition that the Under-Secretary laid down a few months ago that the dismemberment of the artificial conglomerate, such as always was the Austro-Hungarian Empire at its best, was an inevitable incident of the Peace. But a fact, I think, which has not been borne in mind in the provisions of this Treaty is this: that Austria-Hungary with all its appendages of dependent or subordinate States was, and had been for many years, to the mutual advantage of all its parts, a complete economic unit. The new States will have to be evolved, and evolved largely on ethnological lines, though I quite agree with the remark made by my hon. Friend that you must not carry ethnology into what I may call abstract regions. There are strategic and other considerations which come in to temper what I may term the pure logic of ethnology, but the new States will have to be evolved mainly and primarily on ethnological lines.
But in my judgment it is all-important, in that necessary redistribution of sovereignty and of territory that the integrity of the old economic unit should be maintained. It is not enough to say that under the Treaty the different and now separated factors or ingredients of what was once the Austro-Hungarian Empire can enter into commercial relations with one another. They ought never to have been put into a position to do otherwise. From the first they would, I am sure, have acquiesced without any difficulty if such a proposition had been insisted on by the Powers. They ought never to have been put into a position in which they were able to erect economic and commercial barriers between themselves, and what remains of Austria. The fact is that the course, unhappily adopted in this respect, will have the effect, unless it is corrected, and corrected rapidly, to use an expression once current, of Balkanising that part of Europe. One of the great reasons of the constant unrest which Europe, and, indeed, the world, has had to suffer from in the Balkan Peninsula during the whole of my lifetime, has arisen from that very kind of separation between small States, ethnologically distinct from one another, and entitled, therefore, prima facie, to the ordinary rights of sovereignty within their own areas, but capable of waging against one another, under the influence of ambition or selfish interests, not only military but economic warfare. That has been a source of constant unrest in the Balkan Peninsula. I think it would be of the worst example to have a re-creation or repetition of that state of things. Of this I see some very menacing and disquieting symptoms in these new States which have been carved out of the old Austrian Empire.
I am not going to say much, nor indeed anything—I will confine myself to a single observation—on the question of the delimitation of frontiers. There is a good deal to be said by way of criticism—as my hon. Friend has acknowledged in the case of Czecho-Slovakia—of the merger of, in some cases, homogeneous German and other populations in which is to be, for all intents and purposes, a Slavonic State. But I know too well the difficulties that arise when a population is not evenly separated in blocks, but is
distributed, as it were, in pockets—in all the different areas—the difficulties of making anything like a perfect ethnological demarcation, to be hypercritical about that. I wish, I confess, that the principle of self-determination, direct self-determination, which has been acknowledged, and I think properly acknowledged, in the case of the Klagenfurt Enclave, could have been more widely extended to other parts of what was the Austrian Empire. On the main point I think we are entitled to ask for an explanation—indeed, we have been promised it—as to the meaning and effect that is to be given to the concluding words of Article 88.

Mr. BONAR LAW: (Leader of the House): Perhaps it will simplify discussion if I say all I can say on that right away. If my right hon. Friend will look at the words he will see that they say that Austria is not allowed to do anything which will interfere with her independence particularly in regard to commercial treaties. In my view the meaning of that is perfectly definite that Austria may make any treaty not incompatible with its existence as an independent State.

Mr. ASQUITH: If that is so, the words are singularly ill-chosen to represent the meaning of the authors. The words are these—I am quoting textually from Article 88, page 24 (General Provisions):
The independence of Austria is inalienable otherwise than with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations. Consequently Austria undertakes, in the absence of the consent of the said Council, to abstain from any act which might directly or indirectly or by any means whatever compromise her independence, particularly.
This is the point—
Particularly, and until her admission to membership of the League of Nations, by participation in the affairs of another Power.
If my right hon. Friend will tell us what is the authorised version of that, we shall be very grateful.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can, but I am not in a position to defend the language. The meaning, I think, of what is intended is perfectly clear, and I think the meaning is this:
Consequently Austria undertakes, in the absence of the consent of the said Council, to abstain from any act which might
directly or indirectly or by any means whatever compromise her independence particularly,
this is the point—
but by participation in the affairs of another Power.
That is to say, any agreement with any other party which compromises her independence. That is certainly what is intended.

Lord R. CECIL: I think the House should clearly understand what is the meaning of the words "and until her admission". Does that mean her admission into the League of Nations? The provision is that she is "not to participate in the affairs of another Power," which really means that she is not to become part of Germany without the consent of the League of Nations. Then the article goes on to say that she is not to make any agreement which will compromise her independence, particularly and until she comes into the League of Nations. I really do not understand what that means.

Colonel S. PEEL: That refers to a clause in the Constitution of the new German Empire which provided that delegates should come from the new German Austria to sit in the new German Parliament, and I think that is what participation in the affairs of another Power refers to.

Mr. ASQUITH: The hon. Member seems to have some special source of knowledge which is denied to us. I pass from that to a point which I indicated, and which to me is the real gravamen of criticism against this Treaty, namely, the absence in the creation of this new State system in Eastern Europe of any provision for free commercial intercourse between the various States. In order that these new States—and I include German-Austria itself—should prosper and develop, it is essential to provide that there should be free trade and a common railway system between them. To show that I am not dealing with an imaginary danger, let me read a few lines from a circular which I saw in one of the papers a few days ago from an eminent and well-known firm in the City, whose business leads them to deal largely in Continental exchange, and these are the words they used:
Economic chaos and distress in Central Europe are largely attributable to the mak-
ing of new political frontiers for the many small States. These frontiers resolve themselves into economic barriers which prevent that free interchange of food and commodities which were enjoyed by the larger States before they were cut up, and the large railways are now controlled and hampered by each little State through which they run.
That is a practical illustration which has already come into being of the shortsightedness of these omissions from the Treaty. Let me ask the House to look for a moment—I know that hon. Members are very desirous of coming down to the real concrete details—at the position of German-Austria itself, the contracted, mutilated, curtailed German-Austria which the Treaty has brought into existence. Austria is reduced to a State, I suppose, at the outside of a population of about 7,000,000. That population is distributed in the proportion of very nearly two-thirds in the towns and one-third in the rural districts. German-Austria is an industrial country, and not one that can feed or supply itself. It has always been dependent on the other parts of the old Austrian Empire for its supplies of food and raw material and, indeed, to a large extent, for coal.
What is the position now? The Czechoslovaks refuse to supply Austria with coal, and instead of sending Austria sugar, as they used to do under the old régime, their surplus supply of sugar is sold to France. Jugo-Serbia refuses to supply foodstuffs to Austria, and Hungary is either unable or unwilling to do anything of the kind. The situation has been aggravated, as this eminent commercial firm point out in the circular from which I quoted, by transport difficulties and railway difficulties which need not exist, and ought to have been prevented. What is the result? Austria cannot get coal because she cannot pay in goods, and she cannot do that because she cannot get the coal to produce the goods. The shortage of rolling stock hinders the transport of the goods that could be given in exchange, and the scarcity of agricultural produce has led to the control of foodstuffs and to artificially enhanced and aggravated prices, and the main support of German-Austria during these months, as the Under-Secretary well knows, has been the 48,000,000 dollars which she has received from the United States.
Let the House observe the result. By means of that credit of 48,000,000 dollars
from the United States, German-Austria has been enabled to obtain a limited quantity both of coal and food, and we have seen this bizarre and fantastic spectacle; coal coming from America to Vienna crossing on the railway coal coming from Czecho-Slovakia to Italy, and sugar coming to Vienna from Cuba while Czecho-Slovakian sugar, at the same time, has been coming in the opposite direction, and has been exported to France. Can you imagine a more topsy-turvy system, or can you imagine anything more calculated to the economic development of these new States? I press this point very strongly on the Government because it is not provided for. It is all important, and it is a condition precedent to restarting industry on free and fruitful lines, not only in German-Austria, but also in all these new States brought into being, where it is necessary that you should recreate economic unity, without which they cannot fairly develop their own resources
I pass now to what is, after all, a relevant and in some ways an interdependent topic, and one which was dealt with very lightly by the Under-Secretary, I mean the reparation provisions of the Treaty. They are framed, as I read them, on the model of the German Treaty with very little modification. I need not quote them, because they are familiar to all who have read the Treaty, but I would refer to Article 181 of the Austrian Treaty, which provides:
Austria shall pay in the course of the years 1919, 1920, and the first four months of 1921, in such instalments and in such manner (whether in gold, commodities, ships, securities, or otherwise) as the Reparation Commission may lay down, a reasonable sum which shall be determined by the Commission.
Those are the governing words of the article, and I need not read the concluding part. What is the effect of that? It ought to be read in connection with the provision to be found in an earlier article handing over by way of reparation and compensation for the damage done by Austria of a specified number of cattle, milch cows, swine, and other beasts. What is the effect of that. It is quite true the Reparation Commission have it in their discretion, if they please, either to postpone or perhaps altogether to forgo the handing over of this stock. They have it in their discretion also if they are so
minded to mitigate or postpone the fulfilment of the obligation which I have just read from Article 181. But the fact remains that this Commission, on which Austria is not represented, is given by the Treaty, to use the language of business, a floating charge over the whole enterprise and industry of the inhabitants of German-Austria for years to come.
5.0 P.M.
How can you expect any country, let alone a country impoverished, as German-Austria has been, by the circumstances to which I have already adverted, to restart with energy and success its economic life under such a burden as that? The thing is unthinkable. Much misapprehension prevails on this matter, and I am not using this argument in any spirit of tenderness for the Austrian Government, or even for the Austrian people, because they deserve to suffer for what they have done and for the injuries they have inflicted. By every consideration of international law, justice, and even of humanity, they are under an obligation to make such reparation as they can for the injuries they have caused. What could be more short-sighted, given those propositions of mine in their fullest and largest sense, than to drain, tap, and impoverish in advance the only reservoir out of which you can get to flow that stream by which they can best fulfil these obligations? That is the real criticism of this Treaty. I am sorry to have detained the House so long, but these are points which really go down to the root of the matter and which involve, I will not say the honour of the Allies, but the possibility of a righteous, lasting and fruitful settlement, such as we all desire, of this great international problem which has been cast upon us by the War. In my judgment the Treaty should be revised in the light of these facts and of the experience we have now gained. In the meantime—and I know the difficulties and obstacles which stand in the way of anything like an immediate revision in these days—in the meantime I want very strongly, but with the fullest possible conviction of the justice and expediency of what I am suggesting, in the best interests of the Allies themselves, and of civilisation, and of the world, to urge upon the Government first that the total burden that is to be imposed upon Austria
under the provisions of the Treaty should be carefully and promptly defined in amount by the Reparations Commission, on which, I think, for this purpose, it would only be fair and right you should include a representative of Austria. There may be differences of opinion about that, but I do not think there can be any difference of opinion as to the importance and urgency of substituting for these indefinite charges something which is known, something which is measurable, and something which can be met. Unless that is done the whole industrial future of Austria will be impoverished, and you will have what I will call a motiveless people, deprived in advance of any real incentive to make the best of the resources, both in men and material, which they possess. I would very strongly urge that.
Next I think, and I trust the Government may take the same view, that the Allied Powers of their own initiative, or perhaps it might be better by suggestion to the League of Nations, should insist on the disarmament of these new States. The case of Austria is adequately provided for by the Treaty. Its army is to be reduced to very small proportions, to the number, I think, of about 30,000, and it can be very well kept in check. Its army is to be on the basis of a fixed ratio per thousand men. The importation and exportation of munitions is prohibited; the domestic manufacture of munitions for the purposes of the army is strictly limited and provided with proper safeguards. All her warships are to be surrendered, and those under construction are to be broken up. That is to say as complete and effective steps are taken as can possibly be desired to prevent the resuscitation or, as some people would prefer to say, the recrudescence of Austria as an armed Power. I am not criticising these provisions of the Treaty at all, when I say if that is done with regard to Austria I think steps ought also to be taken, promptly and effectively, to deal with these small States not in any spirit of hostility but to prevent the growth of armaments. I am told that the Czechoslovaks have already passed a law for compulsory military service and that they have a deficit of something like 5,000,000,000 kroner, which is mainly due to military expenditure. It is
monstrous that this new experiment in free national life under the ægis of the great Powers of Europe and of the League of Nations should be clogged, disfigured even crippled, because it must be crippled, in its early infantile stages of existence by a gross and wholly unjustifiable expenditure on armaments. I strongly urge, and indeed I ask the Government, that provision should be made in that respect for what is an admitted and a deplorable lacuna.
It follows from what I have said that German-Austria itself, and those lands which were previously constituent parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, should be given clearly to understand that, in the opinion of the Powers, and of the League of Nations, it is essential to their future prosperity, and for peace and order in Eastern Europe, that they should drop their policy of economic exclusion and irritation and treat themselves as one economic and commercial union. If these-defects in the Treaty were promptly and effectually supplied I should be prepared to wait for further experience before its-complete revision, but so long as these defects exist I must regretfully give it as my opinion that the Treaty in itself as it stands does not provide effectual safeguards for the peace and prosperity of Eastern Europe.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which in the case of Austria places unreasonable economic-burdens on that country, and in the case of both Austria and Bulgaria violates the principle of self-determination and contains the seeds of future wars.
After the five years of war and misery through which we have passed it is only with a deep sense of responsibility that I rise to move the rejection of a measure which is calculated to be at least a milestone on the road towards that new world for which very many thousands of lives were sacrificed. There are some who say, "Sign the Treaty, sign any Treaty and get it out of the way, and let us get back to work and to normal conditions." Such arguments would hold good were the revision required merely a revision of some Clauses of the Treaty, but the revisions which we demand are fundamental and
go to the very constitution of the Treaty. We admit that under the provisions of the Treaty there is very wide scope for the revision of some of the Clauses, but that revision could take place much more quickly and with much greater celerity by providing a new Treaty for the peoples of Austria and Bulgaria. This Treaty deals with both Austria and Bulgaria, and I hope I shall have the support of hon Members on both sides of the House in drawing attention to this matter. The two Treaties deal with the peace, stability and future tranquility of Eastern and South Eastern Europe, and surely it would have been bettor if the Government had seen fit to bring in two Bills and to allow these two important measures to be discussed on different days. This is a typical example of the Government disregard for Parliamentary institutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Harms-worth) did not deal with these Treaties by chapter and verse. Anyone who has taken the trouble to read through these very voluminous documents—and I hope before long they will take the trouble if they have not already done so—will find a number of details which require immediate attention. I am going to confine myself this afternoon to some of the fundamental issues in these Treaties.
Let me deal first with the Treaty affecting Bulgaria. In 19718, before the Armistice was signed, it is, I think, generally admitted that one absolutely predominant factor which brought about the collapse of the morale of the Bulgarian army was the declaration uttered on every possible occasion, that the future settlement of the Balkans would be based on the principle of self-determination. That was, I think, the fundamental factor which brought about the demoralisation of the Balkan army. But in the Treaty we find no attempt whatever to introduce the principle of self-determination. The old Treaty of Bucharest, which was recognised by none of the Allied Powers, and which was in fact only recognised by Germany, is now to be brought into force so far as the Bulgarian people are concerned. In Macedonia there is an admitted population of at least a million Bulgars. I do not suggest for one moment that it would be desirable for Macedonia to be ceded to Bulgaria, but at least some provision should be made for the very considerable number of Bulgarian people which exist in that country. We
know the conditions of strife that prevail and if those territories which contain large Bulgarian populations are to be subjected, without reserve or qualification, to the rule of the Turks, the Greeks and the Jugo-Slavs they are bound to form the scenes of future trouble. I suggest it would be far better to concede to Macedonia, or a portion of it, complete autonomy and to use the influence of the League of Nations to bring about a rapprochement between Serbia and Jugo-Slavia and the people of Bulgaria. In the north Tzaribrod has been transferred. There seems to be no reason, politically and strategically, why it should have been transferred to Jugo-Slavia, to rescind except it be, possibly, the reason that Sofia would virtually be within range of bombardment by the Jugo-Slavs. I see no other reason for transferring that large indentation of country which surrounds the town of Tsaribrod to these people. The same might be said of Bosiligrad, where the population is predominantly either Bulgarian or Macedonian.
Western Thrace is claimed by Greece, and before 1913 it was very thinly populated. After the Balkan wars, that country became the home of Macedonian refugees, of whom there are estimated to be approximately 150,000. Those people—Turks and Pomaks (Bulgar Moslems)—are content to live there under Bulgarian rule, although, probably, if a plebiscite could be taken, they would prefer to be under Turkish rule. If that territory is given to Greece—and there appears to be no alternative to giving it either to Greece or to Bulgaria—it would mean that that poor population of refugees would have to move into other territory. I do not know the reason for this large donation of territory to the Greeks; I can only imagine that it is for the purpose of satisfying the aspirations of the Greek Imperialists. I have no doubt that France, with her extensive financial interests in Greece, is largely responsible for pressing this on the Peace Conference in Paris. Whilst referring to that neighbourhood, may I say a few words regarding the town of Kavala. There are two large ports open to Bulgaria on the Ægean, namely, Dedeagatch, which has already railway communication to the centre of Bulgaria, and the very fine natural harbour of Kavala, which, although it has not yet
sufficient railway communication, might soon become an important port in the south of Bulgaria. Until the status of one or other of these two ports is definitely settled, the economic situation in Bulgaria cannot be stabilised. I am speaking, not merely from the point of view of Bulgaria, but from our own selfish, sordid, commercial aspect. It means a great deal to British trade to be assured that these ports are free to the commerce and industry of any country. If they are placed under the control of Greece, or of some country which is hostile to the Bulgarians, there is no doubt that that hostility will be shown by a restriction of the flow of trade and commerce between Bulgaria and the open sea. If neither of those ports is made independent or given to Bulgaria—which latter would be a far better solution—commerce will have to proceed up the Dardanelles and through the Bosphorus into the Black Sea, which means an addition of at least 400 or 500 miles. I understand, from reports which have appeared in the Press, that M. Venizelos has declared that he would be prepared to accept international control of one or other of these ports, and I very much regret that, in bringing this Treaty before the House of Commons, and asking us to ratify such a Clause as this—

Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present—

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: I very much regret that the Government have seen fit to bring this Bill, and with it a Treaty in regard to Bulgaria, before the House, leaving this vital point undecided and undefined. From the reports of Sir William Goode and others who have been to Bulgaria, it will be seen that that country, perhaps almost alone among the countries of Eastern Europe, was gifted last year with a large harvest. With the present world shortage of food, surely it is essential that this question of a port should be decided with the utmost celerity. Any Peace Treaty which the House is asked to ratify will be of very little value if this important military point is left undecided. In Section 4, Articles 49–57, of the Bulgarian Peace Treaty, the question of the protection of minorities in Bulgaria is referred to. In Bulgaria there
have been few, if any, allegations of suppression or maltreatment of minorities. There are 40,000 Jews in Bulgaria, and I have never heard of a Jewish pogrom there. There are 15,000 Armenians in Bulgaria, and I have never heard of any massacre of Armenians there, in fact they are allowed every freedom and privilege possible. The Armenians in Bulgaria have their own Bishop. Complete protection is now demanded for the minorities of other races in that country. I do not disagree with that Clause, which is a very right one to include in a Treaty with a late enemy; but I consider that there should be included in this Treaty a converse provision in the case of the other countries surrounding Bulgaria, which have been enemies of Bulgaria for so long. Provision should be made that those countries shall afford adequate protection to subjects of Bulgarian extraction domiciled within their territory. I remember, when Bulgaria came into the War against us, what a terrible blow it was to those at the Dardanelles. I do not think the Bulgarian people as a whole were responsible for bringing their country into the War. I believe I am right in saying that it was solely the result of the intrigues of the King and the Court circles. I would go further, and say that I believe it would have been possible, at the time of the entry of Bulgaria into the War in 1915, by greater diplomatic pressure on the part of Great Britain and her representatives in Sofia, to have kept Bulgaria out of the War. I do not, however, wish to develop that further, but would let bygones be bygones. If Albania remains undivided, and is treated wisely by Italy; if Macedonia, or at any rate portions of Macedonia, are granted autonomy; if Thrace is not Greek; if those ports leading to the Ægean are either placed in Bulgarian hands or guaranteed by international control; if the people of the Dobruja are merely given a plébiscite, which is all they ask—I think the legitimate claims of Bulgaria will be satisfied. I believe that if the Dobruja, which has been given to Rumania, is granted a plébiscite, at least one-third of that little corner which has been transferred to Rumania will prove to be overwhelmingly Bulgarian. They are quite prepared to admit that Con-stanza, the port on the Black Sea, and all the territory to the north of that port are
likely to declare in favour of Rumania. The least we can ask, in justice to the principle of self-determination, is that those areas which are cut away from the main country, and given to a former enemy, should be conceded the privilege of a plébiscite before being finally and irretrievably placed under the domination of Rumania.
At the same time these sections are being subjected to the domination of nations who were formerly their enemies; the extent of the Army in Bulgaria has been restricted, while no similar restrictions have been placed on the armies in the surrounding countries. That is bound to lead to war in the future. If Bulgaria is left in the centre, disarmed, with her armies restricted, while surrounding her there are Rumania, Greece and Jugo-Slavia with no restrictions on their armies, and liable at any moment to make new inroads and to re-assert themselves on their former enemy, I consider that that is merely sentencing Bulgaria sooner or later to complete political and economic annihilation.
I wish to discuss the treaty with Austria from three separate points of view, namely, reparation, the economic point of view, and the ethnographical point of view. As regards reparation, it seems to me that the Treaty with Austria has been compiled with the idea that the former Austrian Government was responsible not only for carrying on the War against its enemies, but for continuing to prosecute that War on States which were carved out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire during the War. I do not think there was ever any spirit in Austria corresponding to the spirit in Germany before the War. I do not think one would say there was any spirit in Austria corresponding to the Pan-German spirit which was so dominant in 1914. There was no world spirit There was no intention for world domination on the part of the Austrian Empire before the War, and I do not think there was anything like the foolish, worked-up, organised propaganda of hate between the Austrian people and the Allies as existed to some extent between Germany and Great Britain. The War with Serbia was not a war organised by the Austrian people. It was provoked, so the evidence goes to show, by a small handful of militarists. With the idea that German-Austria was one of the
principal criminals in the war, German-Austria alone is to be compelled to pay an indemnity. German-Austria, as it is now intended to exist, occupies barely a ninth of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire.
As in the case of Germany there is a complete lack of definitiveness or declaration as to the amount of the reparation. It was stated that after two years the Reparation Commission may issue its-report and decide on the extent of that amount, but any person who has read the report of Sir William Goode, anyone who has read the reports coming from that part of the country, knows what a delay of two years means. It may mean widespread suffering. It may mean the deaths of thousands of children. This amount should be fixed at the earliest possible moment. Until the exact amount is determined what financial firm would consider for a moment placing any money or commencing to undertake the exploitation or the assistance of that country? All the natural resources, all the forests, all the mines, all the railways, all the ships which used to belong to her, and even the taxes, are mortgaged on behalf of the Allies. While that condition exists, how is it possible for Austria-Hungary to set the wheels of commerce and industry going again? With certain exceptions, the pre-war debts and other loans which are held, I am informed, by French capitalists, the new States; which have been carried out of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire are not responsible for the payment of the loans issued during the War. The people in neutral countries who hold Austrian war loan will be able to obtain cash for it on the Austro-Hungarian Government. What is the result of that? Any subjects in the new States which have been formed out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire have only to send their scrip to a neutral country to have it cashed to the account of the Austro-Hungarian Government in Vienna. It is in these Slav States where the war profiteers and the people who made money out of the War reside, and those States are capable of paying anything that is required. There is a very important precedent as to why the new States carved out of the old Empire should be called upon to shoulder the obligations of their mutual debt. I refer to Russia. It has been frequently admitted that Soviet Russia, where they
have completely changed their whole system of internal administration, the border States and the Baltic States must all share their responsibility with regard to Russia's pre-War debts and obligations. Why, if this applies to one country, should not the same rule be made to apply to any other?
I turn next to another more tragic section of the reparation Clauses. On page 49 of the Treaty it is enumerated that thousands of milch cows, heifers, bulla and calves—

Lieut.-Colonel BURGOYNE: I beg to call your attention, Sir, to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The House has just been counted, and 40 Members were found present.

Lieut-Colonel MALONE: Sir William Goode, who returned recently from that country, in his report speaks of numbed children in the snow-covered streets begging for the food that is not there. Later he says:
The inability to obtain a ration in itself insufficient to support human life and the misery of hundreds and thousands, who in the early winter snow shiver without heat or the hope of getting it, is bad enough but it is nothing compared with the apathy and helplessness and loss of all hope which is pervading every class from the highest to the lowest.
No one reading that Report, and at the same time reading the harsh and cruel suggestion to deprive Austria-Hungary of these thousands of milch cows and other animals, but will be smitten with the injustice and falsity of this treatment. Such a provision in the Treaty is the final blow of a conqueror to his victim lying squirming in the mud. I hope before this Treaty is ratified the Allies will take the earliest opportunity of bringing before the League of Nations suggestions for modifying the reparation clauses in regard to those items.
I now deal with the economic side of the Treaty. Vienna is a town of approximately 2,250,000 inhabitants. It has been said, perhaps to some extent rightly, that Vienna is built up of a parasitic population. That applies to all large towns. It applies to Paris and to London. All the large capitals and all large towns which are centres of im-
perialistic empires and large capitalistic States are bound to be largely bureaucratic or parasitic populations. But if statistics go to show anything they show that Vienna at least is not worse than other large towns. In 1912 526,000 workmen were insured against accident in Vienna. That shows that the industrial population is not negligible. That town was dependent for its industries on its relations with the States which are now being dismembered from the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. What has been the result of that dismemberment? In spite of the safeguards in the Treaty that the Czechs were to supply a certain amount of coal and other commodities to Vienna, the very opposite has been the result. Imagine what would happen in London if all the industrial districts of England were taken away, and the mouth of the Thames was controlled and placed in the hands of a hostile country. The whole population of London, dependent as a focal point on the industrial life and commerce of England, would very soon be deprived of its means of livelihood, and that is exactly what is happening in Vienna. Under these clauses there is no evidence at all that any safeguards have been introduced which will ensure that Czecho-Slovakia and the other countries will supply German-Austria with the goods she requires. What has been happening all this time? Coal has been demanded from Czecho-Slovakia. The Czechs refused to supply it unless they were given in return arms and munitions. The Austrians quite rightly refused to supply arms, which would, doubtless, only be used against the Socialist Republic of Hungary. Although there was considerable animosity, no doubt, between the bourgeois Socialists of Austria-Hungary and the late Socialist Republic of Hungary, they did not desire to supply arms for that purpose. Czech officers arrived in Vienna and tried to obtain the arms by threats, but unsuccessfully, and I believe many Austrian workmen were shot down by these Czech officers. At the pressure of the Allied Commissioners and the British Commission, a certain amount of coal has been supplied, but quite inadequate to meet the needs of Vienna. The provisions of the Treaty cannot really ensure amicable relations between Czecho-Slovakia and German-Austria.
I will now turn to the ethnological point of view. We heard during the War a great deal about self-determination. The fruits of these Treaties and the fruits of the Government's policy, both as regards our own possessions and the countries which are dealt with by these Treaties, lead one to conclude that self-determination is only applied if and when it is considered desirable to apply self-determination. In Bohemia, Moravia and Austrian Silesia it is estimated that there are at least 3,000,000 Germans. The Czechs have refused a plebiscite in that area, but, fortunately, there has been an unofficial plebiscite which gives statistics of the relative populations in those countries. A short time ago the elections to the Town Councils of Bohemia, Moravia, and Austrian Silesia took place. In Bohemia the Germans polled 33.1 per cent. 2.14 per cent., and in Austrian Silesia 66.8 per cent., a very considerable majority per cent., a very considerable majority of that country. While these elections were in progress the country was held by the Czech troops, and there are cases which have come to my notice of atrocities committed in that area on the German population by the Czech troops. I do not intend to deal with that now, and only mention it to show that these elections were carried out under conditions which gave no favouritism but rather imposed disadvantages on the German population. If we are going to apply the principles of self-determination to any of these countries, the very least we can do in the interests of justice and humanity is to let them be submitted to a plebiscite before they are placed definitely under the domination of another country. In Czecho-Slovakia 500,000 Ukranians who have been placed within the boundaries of Czecho-Slovakia, have been granted autonomy. Why are not the same privileges extended to the German populations of Bohemia, Moravia and Austrian Silesia?
Under the Secret Pact of London the Southern Tyrol was promised to Italy. It has a population of 242,255, and of this population only 2.8 are Italians. Surely there is no reason, certainly not from the ethnological point of view, to place this country under Italian jurisdiction. It is said that the Tyrol is placed under Italy on strategical grounds. Surely it is much better to bring about freedom and to work for amity than to put a section of the
country under a country to which it has never stated that it wished to be subject, and to carve up the country for purely strategical purposes for the sake of a possible future war. The Tyrolese have always been a free people. When Napoleon had subjugated nearly the whole of the continent of Europe, the gallant little Tyrolese, under Andreas Hofer, rose up to oppose that mightly personage. The name of Andreas Hofer was a name to conjure with in Great Britain. A loan was proposed in this country at that time in order to support Andreas Hofer against Napoleon, but, unfortunately, as so often happens, the loan arrived too late. I hope it will be possible to reconsider these items of the Treaty before putting these people firmly and irrevocably under Italian jurisdiction. The same remark applies to other sections of the territories which have been carved out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In Styria, the Southern territory has been given to the Southern Slavs. In Lower Austria, the territory has been ceded to the Czechs. In Western Hungary, territory has been given to German Austria. I am not discussing the right or the wrong of these actions. What I do say is that surely before transferring these territories—which every expert will admit is a doubtful matter—they should be submitted to the test of self-determination, and the people should be allowed to choose by plebiscite. Corinthia is the only country where a plebiscite is being carried out in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. There three zones have been arranged, and I cannot see why, if it is possible in a small section of territory like that to cut it up into three zones for the purposes of a plebiscite, you should not adopt the same principle for Moravia, Bohemia and Austrian Silesia. These are the main points which have led me to oppose these Treaties, but there are minor points which require revision and alteration.
It is with the deep sense of responsibility that I propose to delay the conclusion of peace with these countries, but I feel sure that, by revising the Treaties now before they are ratified, by modifying at least in its essential points, a solution can be arrived at much quicker than if it is put into operation in its present form, and the events which such a Treaty would bring about in Eastern Europe are allowed to take place. It has caused the widest
consternation and unrest amongst millions of people in Eastern Europe. Perhaps, having received the coupon at the last General Election from the Prime Minister and from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, it would appear to be rather ungracious on my part at this point to oppose a Treaty which they have made in Paris. If I considered that this Treaty had been drawn up in the spirit of the declaration made so frequently during the War, and during the period which led up to the election campaign, I should have no hesitation in supporting a measure for ratifying this Treaty. Apart from the academic sections of the Treaty, which are of no reality, the remainder of the Treaty gives one the impression, and brings before one's mind, the picture of a man torn by the wolves of capitalism and the wolves of imperialism, a limb thrown here and a limb thrown there, a limb torn off here and another torn off there, and the bloody corpse left lying like the corpses that remained on the field of Amritsar, without even a modest palliative. Whoever wishes to secure peace, to secure freedom from the curse of militarism, and to secure a better world for his children, must protest with all his strength and powers against this sham peace of violence and of greed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
The party for whom I speak have no hesitation in dissociating itself absolutely from these two so-called Peace Treaties. They give the lie to the 14 Points of President Wilson. They have no connection with self-determination of peoples. As to their economic Clauses, the very statesmen who have passed them are so ashamed of them that they cannot put up any defence of them. In old days there used to be a gentleman called Cato the Elder, who used to finish all his speeches by saying "Carthage must be destroyed." He did eventually secure its destruction, It is some satisfaction to find that in England there is no statesman who can get up to support these Treaties, which are for the destruction of our late enemies. The sympathy of the House goes out to the hon. Member opposite for having to defend these Treaties. They were passed nearly six months ago, and people are now beginning to see what these Treaties mean.
They see that they mean the starvation of the women and children of Vienna. They see the conditions that have been produced by these so-called Peace Treaties. Being ashamed of them, they are trying to revise them. At the same time the hon. Member opposite has to support them in this House. I do not envy him. I know that in the privacy of his chamber he shares our views.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I do not.

6.0 P.M.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This is not the privacy of your chamber. An official must necessarily support Treaties made by his chief. What are we to say for Treaties which even their very creators find it necessary to scrap in six months? Look at the Austrian Treaty from its economic side. Does the hon. Member really wish to be a Cato the Elder and support the economic side of the Austrian Treaty? Does he really think that anything can be got out of Austria, with the kroner standing at 800 to the pound? Does he not know perfectly well that since the Armistice, instead of getting money out of Austria, we have been continually pouring money into Austria by way of poor law relief and help of all kinds? What is the use of clauses demanding the extraction of the last milch cow and the last farthing from people to whom we are sending milk and money? The economic side of the Treaty is ridiculous. We are told that we cannot possibly have any sympathy with Austria, and that Austria was the prime mover in the War. We know that Austria was an Empire and a Monarchy whose foreign policy was ruled by an Emperor and a military caste, and that the people who are suffering in Austria to-day are not the military caste, not the ex-Emperors who flood foreign soil, but the miserable proletariat of that country who have no chance of ever securing their future so long as these Peace Treaties stand. Anyone who knows Vienna knows that there is no chance of getting the country on its legs again so long as an indefinite indemnity for reparation hangs over the country. Capital will be invested in the country, loans would be made to it, everything would be done to put it on its legs again were it not for the indemnity provision. How do you expect anyone to advance money to a country like Austria as long as the
machinery for which the money was being advanced, the raw material sent to the country to provide work to set the people producing goods, and all those goods themselves are liable at any moment to confiscation by the Reparation Committee, a Committee dominated by the countries that require the reparation?
If the Reparation Committee were purely English we might have some faith that no reparation would be exacted from the starving countries, but it is not English. It consists of Italians and French who are anxious to get what is possible out of the war. As long as that position remains no one is likely to invest money in salving industry. The economic Clauses, therefore, are hardly worth fighting for. The authorities know that they have got to be revised. Every speech in this House will urge that there should be no immediate demand of the indemnity from Austria. Even the right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister, in a speech which supported the Coalition, so far as any speech can be said to support their policy at the present time, put in a plea for the removal of this indefinite indemnity. Unless that is done, everybody in this House knows perfectly well that there is no chance for Vienna, and that what we shall see there will be the crumbling of civilisation and the disappearance of that city.
Look at the other side of the Treaty, the question of the boundaries. There is everything done in that Treaty to prevent Austria recovering. All the factories whose headquarters are at Vienna have been carefully put into Czecho-Slovakia. There has been no attempt to secure any form of boundary which will allow economic independence for Austria. Not only coal mines, but sugar factories and nearly every factory, the company headquarters of which are at Vienna, will be found outside the new German Austria and as a rule where the rulers are bitterly hostile to the Austrians. The right hon. Gentleman speaking from the Front Bench seemed to think that all would be well if only the tariff barriers were removed from Czecho-Slovakia and Austria, and if there were no tariff boundaries between Jugo-Slavia and Austria. That would not meet the difficulty in the least. At present you have got Governments who exercise absolute powers in every direction. You have to get permits to export anything. In all
those countries corruption is more rife than it was in any country in the world before the great war. People get permits to import goods, and people buy coal from Czecho-Slovakia, but not a pound of coal is ever allowed to come. Corruption is rife throughout the whole country, Government action being omnipotent, is the real difficulty you have to face at the present time.
But we do want to put things right. The Government want it, as the Supreme Council are now seeing that the present policy is rather futile. This can only be done first of all by bringing pressure to bear on these people to put their finances in order and that depends, first of all, upon fixing the amount of indemnity which they will have to contribute. If you watch the exchanges of these various countries you will see how they vary. In Poland there are 800 marks to the £1; in Rumania 350; in Hungary about 900, as against 25 before the War, and in Austria 800 as against 25 before the War. You will find that the exchange fluctuates with extra ordinary rapidity. In fact, the only one of these new eastern countries where the exchange is at all reasonable or steady is Czecho-Slovakia itself, which shows more signs of recovery than any of these other countries. The first thing to do is to insist that they should put their finances in order and not indefinitely go on printing paper money. It is this living on paper money which is the source of the instability of the exchange and the impossibility of lending money to industries in this country to enable them to get ahead. The urgent necessity of bringing pressure to bear in that direction must, of course, go hand in hand with an international or a national loan to facilitate trade with these countries, such as the £26,000,000 revolving credit which was passed the other day in order to encourage trade. That is the way in which we can again see civilisation revived in those eastern countries.
But I shall pass now from the economic side, though our charge against the Treaties on their economic side is, I feel certain, shared by the Government, though they deny it to-day. I pass to the question of the boundaries. I believe that I voice, not only the feelings of the Labour party, but of every man in this House, when I say that we resent above everything else the cession to Italy of the Southern Tyrol, a purely German-speaking
country, where many of us have been, the land of Andreas Hofer. Just as always in the past we not only sympathised with Italy in the Italian desire for the recovery of the Trentino, but in times past actually helped Italy to recover Italian territory, so now in future we shall sympathise with the natural desire of the Germans in the Southern Tyrol to be restored to the mother country. It is a country of heroes, a country which should not be severed from Austria and handed over to Italy. We know why it is done. The Labour party protests against these boundaries being laid down, not on ethnographical lines, but simply to follow that secret treaty which pledged us to Italy in the year 1915. It is against the acceptance of these secret treaties that is laying up all the difficulties for the future, and storing up another sore, which is always ready to create a fresh war, and indeed many people will think, and they may be justified in thinking, that in providing this new sore militarists, not only in Italy, but in other parts of the world, had their wits about them, and prepared to keep an open sore as an excuse for keeping open barracks.
The Tyrol is one example, but the whole Austrian boundary provides example after example of precisely the same thing. Slices of territory are taken away either in accordance with secret treaties or on the excuse of making scientific strategic frontiers. It is true that for some reason, possibly owing to some reversion to humanitarian feeling on the part of the Supreme Council, at Klagenfurt a plebiscite will be allowed to be taken. But further east, in Southern Styria, you will find Marburg connected up with Jugo-Slavia. In Western-Hungary there is an obvious place for a plebiscite, and no plebiscite is being taken. Presburg, at the gates of Vienna, a town in which there are not half a dozen Czecho-Slovaks all told, is handed over to Czecho-Slovakia, and you are going to have German strategical lands all around Bohemia handed over to Czecho-Slovakia without any plebiscite or any reference whatever to the fundamental principles on which peace was to have been based. There is very little that can be said in favour of this Treaty. The only thing which can be said in its favour is that it secures peace. But for
how long will that peace be secured? The War which was to end war seems, indeed, to have ended in a peace which is to end peace, and unless the League of Nations takes a hand in the revision of these Treaties and revises them, no League of Nations on earth will ever be able to prevent a future eruption of the old disaffection.
I pass from the Austrian Treaty, with its bad economic side and its iniquitous boundaries, to the Bulgarian Treaty. The Bulgarian Treaty has its points compared with the Austrian. At any rate, the indemnity is fixed. It is fixed at £90,000,000. I wonder whether there is anybody who is mad enough to suppose that Bulgaria, a country purely of peasants, with no industries whatever, will ever pay those £90,000,000, because it is always a bad habit in the Balkans to inflict war indemnities and shut your eyes to the fact nobody ever pays them. But under the Bulgarian settlement as well you have got the same complete disregard of the principles on which the Armistice was signed. The alteration of the frontier at Tsaribrod, which the hon. Gentleman thinks is connected with the railway from Nish to Salonika, has nothing to do with that railway. He is thinking of the railway further south to Strumitza.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I did not specify the particular alteration. I said the alterations which were to protect the railway.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That alteration at Tsaribrod has nothing to do with the railway. It is solely a strategic alteration to bring the Serbian army nearer the Bulgarian capital. The population is purely Bulgarian, and it is only an excuse to obtain a strategic front. It is a small matter. There are only fifty thousand people involved, but it is a typical example of the settling of these peace treaties and boundaries, just on the old lines which have everything to do with starting fresh quarrels, just as though we were working with the old dynasties of the past. This is not the most important question so far as Bulgaria is concerned. The question to Bulgaria more than anything else is Western Thrace. I wish to dissociate myself entirely from the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Paisley when he said that the Bulgarians as a
people were deserving of punishment for coming into the War, Everyone knows that Bulgaria was dragged into the War by the kings, that the countries in the Balkans are more or less absolute monarchies, and that the fault is to be laid at the foot of the Bulgarian throne, and that in the old days all those countries followed a policy which was purely dynastic and had nothing whatever to do with the wishes of the people of the country.
If one could give to the people of the Balkans any sort of advice it would be to pack the whole of the kings off at once, get rid of them, and start some sort of republican organisation which would not allow the people perpetually to be dragged into war through the vanity and ambitions of their rulers. Western Thrace is a very vital question to Bulgaria. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the people of Western Thrace would be just as well satisfied with Greek rule as with Bulgarian rule It is fairly equally divided between Greeks and Turks and Bulgars, but quite recently not only the Bulgarians but the Turks also have petitioned Paris through the French Administrator, not to be put under Greek rule. They desire to be autonomous. I submit that when you have not only the Bulgarians anxious for an outlet to the sea but also have the direct interest of England in keeping the sea open, so that the trade from Bulgaria will come by sea instead of going overland through Germany via the Danube, we might try to assist so that they get a genuine opening to the Ægean Sea. Of course they got on in the old days without any opening to the sea, but there were no railways in those days. It was in 1912, I think, that they first got Dedeagatch as access to the Ægean Sea. That has been taken away from them.
We are told to refer to those special clauses of the Treaty where they are given free access to the Ægean Sea through some port hereafter to be found. Presumably that port will be Kavala. Surely we have had sufficient experience of the methods of those countries which control a port when other countries have treaty rights. It is almost recognised as an axiom that it is utterly valueless to obtain treaty rights of access to a port when another nation which controls the port does not want you to use it. I do not want to go into instances, but one
could give many of them. There are many cases that we know where we are supposed to have acquired our right to trade, but where the right has been an absolute farce owing to the action of the occupying power. I suppose there are no two nations where, at present, there is more bitterness of feeling than there is between the Greeks and the Bulgars. You are definitely going to Greece and asking her kindly to allow facilities for Bulgarian trade. If the two nations got on well together it would be difficult enough, but between two such nations as the Greeks and the Bulgars it is perfectly hopeless. Bulgaria is a small country. I do not think that its trade will ever amount to much, but in the interest of British trade, and not merely in the interest of Bulgarian trade, we should have secured access to the sea for that country, so that we might get a fair proportion of the trade instead of the trade going, as it must do, up the Danube and into Germany.
The British Government, to be quite frank, is not responsible for either of these Treaties. No British Minister would have put his hand to either of them. The Government, I think, will not mind having a Division to-night to show that there is a certain feeling in this country which does not give way to the militarist spirit amongst some of our Allies on the Continent. Our object in dividing is that we want to press upon the Government the urgent necessity of handing over the administration of these Treaties, and particularly the reparation side, to the League of Nations, where they would be dealt with, it is true in many cases, by the same people but with less bitterness and with more of an eye to European solidarity and the reconstruction of a civilisation which at present is rocking to ruin.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think it is worth while calling the attention of the House to the precise effect which this Motion would have. If carried, it would result in the delay, if not the abandonment, of the ratification of the Austrian and Bulgarian Treaties. There is no one who knows the economic position in Europe at the present moment who does not realise that already the ratification of these Treaties has been delayed too long. On that ground, if on no other, I should certainly invite the
House not to share the views expressed by the last speaker. I hope my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will use their good offices with the Governments of the Allied Powers in order to secure at the earliest possible date that at least two of the other Allied Powers shall agree also to join in the ratification, because until the Treaty has been ratified by three of the Allied Powers it does not actually come into force, and until it or some Treaty does come into operation, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to go ahead with the economic reconstruction of Europe. My hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last has a habit of attributing always the worse possible construction to the motives of statesmen, and particularly the statesmen of his own country, in regard to affairs of this character. He went through a long catalogue of various questions connected with territorial adjustments in these Treaties. It is quite impossible and futile in this House to go point by point through all the geographical limitations and definitions imported into the Treaties. On these questions literally months were spent by the highest possible experts in Paris. The whole question was thrashed out on the one side and on the other. You have to take the best evidence you can get, and upon it form the best judgment you can.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What about a plebiscite?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Where a plebiscite is possible and desirable it has been made. I think it is idle for my hon. and gallant Friend to invite us to begin the work all over again. When we come to the economic question I think there is something more which ought to be said, at least by those who think that the Treaties, particularly that with Austria, are not quite as black as they have been painted by him and by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). I am far from taking up the attitude that the Treaty is economically ideally perfect. I do not think there is anyone who would say so. The right hon. Member for Paisley objected to the economic Clauses. He objected to them on the ground, chiefly, that they were breaking up the economic integrity of Austria, and that without economic union in Austria,
or in what used to be Austria, it was idle to hope that Austria would ever recover sufficiently to be an economic force again. The House must remember that, economically speaking, the old Austria always was an absurdity. What is now German Austria was always an economic parasite on the rest of Austria. It was part of the deliberate policy of the Hapsburg régime. The successors of the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire made Vienna a modern edition of Rome, in the sense that there they concentrated all the machinery of Government. They deprived the provinces more and more of all power and more and more centralised control at Vienna.
The Nemesis of that system has overtaken them and this economic difficulty, which I admit to the full, is present in the Treaty, not because of the Treaty, but in spite of the Treaty. It is part of the judgment of history on the actions of the old Austrian Empire. What is the real cause of the economic difficulty? It is the geographical and political disintegration of the old Empire of Austria. It was not the Allies who were responsible for that disintegration. It is true they have been responsible for defining to a certain extent the limits of the various new States, but with or without that definition new States would have arisen all the same. That is why I say it is part of the judgment of history. Take, for instance, the very question of food. The last speaker said that Austria was starving. In the old days from where did Austria draw the great bulk of her supplies? She drew them from Hungary. It is not the Allies who have divided Austria and Hungary, but Hungary herself who has insisted on the right of dividing herself from Austria. It is unfair and unfortunate that the right hon. Member for Paisley should appear to lend the great weight of his authority to the suggestion that the Allies have been in any way responsible for that fact. Granted that you have these geographical consequences you ought to insist that there ought to be the greatest measure of economic freedom and the breaking down of economic barriers between the different new States. I agree, but it is very difficult. I personally think that in a section of the Austrian Treaty, which was read out by the Under-Secretary, a good deal has been done in that particular direction. But how is it proposed
you should compel them? The right hon. Member for Paisley says we ought to compel the new States to grant an economic Zollverein or intercommunication, but how can you do so? Are we to go to war to compel them? I must say that suggestion struck me as a little odd, contrasted with other speeches I have heard from the same right hon. Gentleman with regard to customs and excise in quite another capacity.
I should like to say I am much more in sympathy with the Treaty than with the remarks of the two hon. Gentlemen who have opposed. I should like to refer to one particular provision which I think in the present circumstances might well be considered by the Allied Powers with a view to reconsideration or, at all events, postponement: I refer particularly to Section 6 of Annex 4, which is the reparation part of the Treaty. That Section provides for the immediate delivery, pending the delivery of a certain amount of animals, machinery, equipment, tools, etc., to the Italian Government, and the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government and Rumania 6,000 milch cows and a considerable number of other live stock. I think, with the further knowledge of the situation which has been derived since the Treaty was signed, that this provision is one as to which it is very difficult to urge complete insistence at present. I am told that it is, strictly speaking, true to say that if you take into account Upper Austria and the Northern Tyrol the amount of livestock in this part of Old Austria is not appreciably less than it was at the outbreak of War, but on the other hand the condition of the livestock is very different indeed. One of the great difficulties about the shortage of milk, which is one of the chief shortages, is that Upper Austria and the Austrian Tyrol are making it exceedingly difficult for Vienna to get supplies. That again is partly in consequence of the old economic policy, of the Hapsburg régime. I desire to suggest that consideration should be given to the question as to whether it is not possible to do something to modify this particular provision. The second point is with regard to the Reparation Commission. Under the Treaty as it stands, by Article 179, the Austrian Reparation Commission is to constitute a section of the German Reparation Commission to consider the
special questions which arise as to the application of the present Treaty. That section is to have consultative power only except in cases in which the Commission shall delegate to it such powers as may be deemed convenient. I say quite frankly I regard it as unfortunate that the Austrian Reparation Commission should be merely a section of the German Reparation Commission and should not be a body specially detailed with full powers for the purpose of considering all the questions of reparation. I am very much afraid this question of reparation by Austria will be apt to be overlaid very much by the more important Commission in regard to reparation by Germany. Therefore I should have hoped that the Austrian Reparation Commission would be made a separate body.
Even as things stand, I submit that the House must make up its mind to either trust to the justice of the Reparation Commission or not. If it is not prepared to do so, then it is idle to agree to the Treaty. In this Commission you will be setting up those who are the greatest experts you can find on the subject. The head of the Austrian section of the Reparation Commission, Sir William Goode, has probably much more experience of Austria than any other single Englishman. If you are going to set up a Commission to assess what Austria can pay, and can reasonably be expected to pay, set up your Commission and leave it to them. That I believe to be the only sound line. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley spoke about the desirability of urging on the new States, and particularly the new States in Austria, speedy disarmament and the avoidance of spending money on military preparations. I entirely agree. It is lamentable that at present money, which is badly wanted for reconstruction, is being spent again for purposes of destruction. But, let me add, that it would be also desirable if this process could be applied to the threat against which these new States have to contend, that is the threat of the menace of Bolshevist Russia, and unless you are prepared to take steps in that direction, I must say I think it is a strong measure to declare, for instance, to a country like Czecho-Slovakia that they should take no steps whatever and spend no money whatever on military preparations. I submit that the House ought to agree to the Second Reading of this Bill at once, and
ought to reject emphatically the Amendment which has been proposed.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: I find myself midway between the position taken up by the Under-Secretary of State and that taken up by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill. I do not go the length of the Under-Secretary in his laudation of the Treaty which he declared was eminently satisfactory, neither can I support the rejection. A wit said the other day that the Peace Treaty, and particularly the Austrian Treaty, had Bolshevised Russia, Balkanised Central Europe and "Bottomleyised" Western Europe, with apologies to the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley). I do not agree with that rather bitter description of the Austrian Treaty, but I am conscious that there are many Clauses of it which, in my view, are impracticable and can never be carried out. At the same time, I am not prepared to take the responsibility of delaying for one single day the ratification of the Treaty which, with all its imperfections, is most urgently needed in Central Europe. Indeed, if I have any criticism to make against the Government it is that they have delayed too long the ratification of a Treaty, which was signed as long ago as September, and has been ratified by our Italian Allies many weeks ago. I hope that the Leader of the House, in his reply, will be able to tell us that the Treaty will be pushed through if possible to-day, and that it may go through all its stages to-day, and, if that be impossible, that it will be pushed through without any further delay, and that he will do his utmost to follow the suggestion thrown out by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) to get the necessary number of Allies to make the ratification possible without further delay. The answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the rejection is that if you ask any representative Austrian in Vienna or anywhere else whether he wants further delay, he will tell you that he would rather have the Treaty, with all its imperfections, ratified at once sooner than run the risk of further racial bitterness, further economic stagnation, and a further period during which it would be impossible to do what, in my view, is a most necessary thing in the
interests of peace in Central Europe, namely, to disarm the military and civil population. If there is further delay all those three necessary things will be held up. I am quite certain that the people who will regret the delay more than anyone else will be the suffering population of Vienna and German-Austria.
That seems to me to be a complete answer to the hon. Members who have asked the House to reject the Bill, but that is not a complete answer to the fact that the Treaty does contain a number of Clauses which I believe will be found to be impracticable. I believe that it is impossible, and that it will be found to be impossible, to apply en bloc to German-Austria the greater part of the Reparation Clauses that are being applied to Germany. I believe, further, that it is asking for trouble to tell Austria by Article No. 88 that she may not of her own free will unite with the Germans in South Germany if she desires it. I hope myself that we shall not have a union of that kind, but it does seem to me that if you wish to avoid a union of that kind the best way would be to leave it free to Austria, and not to encourage all the aggressive pan-Germans both in Germany and Austria to make a union which is forbidden under the Treaty. On the ground of self-determination, it is indefensible to tell the Germans of Austria that they may not unite with their fellow-Germans of the rest of Germany. Again, I believe that the Treaty makes a great mistake in exaggerating the political problem of Central Europe and in under-rating the economic unity of Central Europe. Let me say a word, and it shall be very short, for they have already been dealt with at some length, upon each of these points. First of all in regard to the attempt to apply to German-Austria the framework of the Treaty that has already been applied to Germany. I fully agree that the House of Hapsburg was fully as responsible for the War as the House of Hohenzollern, but I do not believe that the peoples of the Austro-Hungarian Empire were as responsible as the peoples of the German Empire. And that practically is admitted, as we have now acknowledged that the greater part of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire cannot be treated as enemy States at all, but that all the component parts of it, with the exception of Austria and Hungary, are our
allies. In view of that and of the very different conditions that apply in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, I feel most strongly that the attempt to apply to Austria-Hungary, two parts of an Empire that hitherto was one and indivisible, very much the same terms as you are applying to Germany, is very unwise.
That does not mean for a moment that I exonerate the militarist class in Austria-Hungary for their part in the War, but I believe it will be found, when the attempt is made by the Reparation Commission to carry out these Clauses, that it will not be possible to isolate Austria-Hungary and to make populations, certainly in the case of Austria, that were very lukewarm and in many cases hostile to the War responsible for the full damage, as you are doing now under the Reparation Clauses. I have said a word as to what I think to be the mistake of attempting to prevent the union between Austria and South Germany. Now I come to the third point to which I made brief allusion, the neglect of the economic unity of Central Europe. That does not mean that I wish to underrate the sovereignty or the independence of the newly constituted succession States. I think that in the course of this Debate attacks have been made upon some of these succession States which have been exaggerated. Personally, I have always strongly supported the aspirations of these revived nationalities in Central Europe. It has been the considered and decided policy of the Allies to recreate these nationalities as sovereign States, and I think it would be the height of folly to attempt to go back upon that policy and to appear by our dictation or in any other way to be undermining the independence and the sovereignty of those States that we have purposely created. But having said that, I believe the framers of the Treaty could have gone a great deal further in bringing these various States together and, without any compulsion, in pointing out to them how absolutely necessary economic unity is between them. As it is, partly owing to the delay and partly owing to the fact that the economic conditions have been to some extent ignored in the Treaty, we are face to face with protection and particularism run mad in Central Europe. I had some opportunity of seeing the evils of that exaggerated protection in the course of the winter, and on that account I do most earnestly hope that the Repara-
tion Commission as its first duty will attempt to re-unite the economic interests in Central Europe that as a result of the last year has been broken in pieces. The problem of Central Europe seems to me to be much more an economic problem than a political problem. I do not so much mind about the territorial adjustments, but I do mind very much about recreating an economic unity in Central Europe, without which Central Europe cannot exist.
Central Europe to-day is suffering from protection run mad. It is another form of militarism, and the two things which are most urgent—and I hope that as soon as the Treaty is ratified the British representatives will bring them into the greatest prominence with our representatives on the Reparation Commission—are first of all disarmament, and, secondly, an end to the exaggerated protection. One of the results of the delay that has taken place in the ratification of the Treaty has been that disarmament has been delayed. Central Europe to-day is suffering from armies far too great for any single one of the States to maintain. I agree with the reservation that my hon. Friend opposite made that, with the danger of Bolshevik Russia in the East, it is impossible for certain of these new countries entirely to disarm, but I believe there is no solution for our difficulties either in Eastern or in Central Europe until we see disarmament in Russia, in Poland, in Czecho-Slovakia, in Rumania, and in Jugo-Slavia, and I hope that the Disarmament Commission that I understand is now proceeding to Austria will not only succeed in carrying through without further delay the disarmament of Austria, but that the Reparation Commission, or whatever may be the appropriate body, will at once make an appeal to the other small States of Central Europe and attempt to bring about a general disarmament in Poland, in Czecho-Slovakia, in Rumania, and in Jugo-Slavia. I know that many other hon. Members are anxious to speak, and I will not take up the time of the House any further, but again let me urge upon the House not further to delay the ratification of the Treaty, with all its faults. At the same time I would ask the Leader of the House to bring his fullest influence upon our representatives, whether they be on the Reparation Com-
mission or on whatever body they may be, to do all in their power to bring again to Central Europe economic unity, and to bring about disarmament in the new States that for the good of Europe the Allies have created.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: I entirely agree with what my hon. and gallant Friend has just said about the necessity of avoiding any further delay, and indeed, for that reason, apart from others, I certainly could not vote for the Amendment. I see neither of the hon. Members responsible for the Amendment is present, but if they were here I think I should be equally safe in saying that neither of them could really contemplate with anything like equanimity a renewal of the Peace Conference, which of course would be the effect of the passage of the Amendment. Certainly, anyone who has had any personal experience of that strange body would desire anything rather than a renewal of its deliberations. I approach this Treaty, therefore, without the slightest intention of voting for the Amendment, but merely to consider whether it will produce a permanent peace as it stands. A good deal has been said in this House and elsewhere about the justice of these terms, or even the terms against Germany, but I have never been able to see that the question of justice arises at all. There is no means of weighing it as a matter of justice at all. We believe that these Powers were responsible for the War, and if they were responsible there is no punishment that is at all adequate, and the question of a little more or a little less reparation has nothing to do with it as far as justice is concerned. The question really is whether the peace terms are practicable, and whether they will make for a permanent peace. Therefore, I entirely agree that the question of importance is not the territorial question. That may be of some importance, and in some cases I think mistakes have been made, but not very serious mistakes, nor do I think they really matter very much. It does not really matter much who has most of these territories. They are not of any great value, the territories in dispute. If I may be permitted to say so without indiscretion, I always thought that during the Peace Conference much too much attention was devoted to these questions of
territorial demarcations. My hon. Friend opposite said these questions were debated by the highest experts for months, and so they were, and yet if any Member of this House, any Member of reasonable intelligence—and they are all that—were given a map of Europe at the end of the War and were told to draw the boundary lines, they would not differ very largely from the boundary lines which were in fact fixed. Each man would make a little difference, no doubt, but the substantial difference would not be great, and I also thought it was a great pity that so much time was given to that, and comparatively so little attention was given to the far more important question of the economic arrangements, which really were vital to the peace of Europe.
7.0 P.M.
Let me say a word about the Bulgarian Treaty. I admit that I have a little doubt about some of its territorial settlements. I think it very difficult myself to defend—and I shall be curious to see if my right hon. Friend will defend—the grant of Tsaribrod to the Serbian State I am very doubtful myself whether the settlement in Macedonia is likely to be permanent. I do not think, generally speaking, the territorial settlement of Bulgaria is objectionable. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel. Wedgwood) took great exception to the exclusion of Bulgaria from the Ægean, to which he knows under the Treaty Bulgaria is given access. It depends on the machinery employed for giving that access. I should have thought it was a matter on which the League of Nations was of great value. Apart from that, the access to the Black Sea is, or ought to be, a more satisfactory outlet from Bulgaria than before the War. Once you really internationalise the Straits you make the Black Sea a real part of the Mediterranean, and access to the Black Sea becomes very much more valuable. Therefore, I do not think there is much to be said in criticism of the Bulgarian Treaty, least of all of the reparation terms. I think the reparation terms of Bulgaria ought to have been the model for the reparation terms in both cases. They are perfectly reasonable in comparison with the Austrian. I do not know what the resources of Bulgaria are, but the sum seems a reasonable sum, and, as I understand, in return Bulgaria gets off her debts to Germany or Austria under
her Agreement. Moreover, she is given considerable time to pay. The amount she has to pay up to January of next year is very small, so far as I can make out—not more than about £1,000,000 altogether.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Pounds in gold.

Lord R. CECIL: And then my hon. and gallant Friend knows it is all under an Inter-Allied Commission of three members, and there is not the difficulty that generally arises in the Reparation Commission that any decision has to be unanimous, because it is a decision by the majority. Therefore, I think everybody will agree that the Bulgarian Treaty is a far more reasonable, practical and sensible document than the Austrian. But I must say, when I come to the Austrian Treaty, I do think it is a bad Treaty. Although I shall not vote for the Amendment, I must say I regret very much many of the terms of the Austrian Treaty. My hon. Friend said that we must not criticise the territorial arrangement. As I have already said, I do not think it is very important, though I must say I have grave doubts about it. It seems to me to fix a most astonishing boundary. Undoubtedly it does include in it a purely German population with a great German tradition behind it, and it leaves the bit of Austria to the north narrow and unworkable. It is all very well to say you want to avoid Austria going into Germany. But if you wanted to drive Austria into Germany, you could not have taken better steps than to cut off the Tyrol on the south, and leave practically impossible territory to Austria to administer. I know it is contended that they guard against that by Article 88. We have had a discussion about the exact meaning of Article 88. I am not quite sure I understand it, even with the assistance of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Colonel S. Peel) in explaining it. But if I do understand it, it means that as soon as Austria becomes a member of the League of Nations she can enter into any arrangements she likes, short of sacrificing her independence, with Germany. I do not think it much matters. I do not think Article 88 is worth a snap of the finger. As a matter of fact, if Austria desires to throw herself into the arms of Germany no Treaty can prevent it. She could always make some kind of agreement or treaty which would in effect place her under the control of Germany.
It is the reparation terms, after all, by which this Treaty must stand or fall, and I must say the reparation terms are absolutely indefensible. Here is a State which can only live, and has only lived for months past, on charity—for that is really what it comes to—whose whole industrial life has been destroyed, at any rate for the time being, which cannot feed itself, which is almost destitute, in spite of my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for North-West Hull (Colonel Lambert Ward), who, if he will allow me to say so, in four days arrived at a different conclusion from those who had formed a conclusion after as many months, or perhaps years. I think he must have been mistaken. I have taken some trouble since to ascertain from those who have given very long and concentrated attention on the subject, whether he was right or wrong, and they all agree he was wrong. But whether he is right or wrong, what he said does not affect anything I have said as to the future position of that country. Here you solemnly put into an international document that she is to be responsible for the whole damages of the War to the same extent as Germany—that she is responsible for all those many items of civilian damage. I do not know what it is estimated at. I have heard it put at £8,000,000,000 and all sorts of sums. It seems to me a fantastic way of making peace. It is left absolutely indefinite. No one knows yet what it is going to be. It is going to be fixed, we are told, by the 1st May, 1921. But even if it is fixed it must be a fantastic sum in any case. How can you expect a State to recover economically if you do anything of that kind? It is to condemn her to a perpetual condition of insolvency. What is our experience in private life? We have had to erect an elaborate bankruptcy system because it was found impossible to leave a man to a load of debt he could never pay, and that, unless it was all wiped off, and he was given a fresh start, he was a useless member of society. You could not expect him to work or exert himself if the result of all his exertions was immediately handed over to his creditors.
That is what you have done in Austria. However she works, the whole of her money is to go to her creditors. That is a perfectly outrageous proposition to put in an international document. The right
hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), I think, said, with great truth, that the entry of Bulgaria into the War was as indefensible as any act that was committed by our enemies. I quite agree, and it is not true to say that it was the work entirely of Ferdinand. I have the worst possible opinion of Ferdinand. He was an exceedingly wicked man and very cunning, but he was supported by a majority of his Parliament, which was elected on absolutely democratic lines. An overwhelming majority of his Cabinet supported him, and it is not true to say that he dragged an unwilling country into the War. They wanted to come in because they thought they were going to get something out of it. The whole thing was who could offer enough to keep Bulgaria on one side of the fence or the other, and since our conscience or our prudence was not quite of the same character as that of our enemies, they bought Bulgaria, and we did not. That is really what happened. Therefore Bulgaria has no kind of international claim in my judgment. Yet, she is treated absolutely different. Why is it? The demoralisation of the population is what everybody sees who comes back from Austria, even my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Hull.
In Bulgaria it is different. It is said that there the people are working hard, and are already putting their country into order. You give them some power of recovery, but you have not done that with Austria, and that is the great vice of the Treaty. Of course, it is not only the moral effect which it has on the population. Indefinite liability makes it impossible to obtain credit. I think it had had some effect in throwing into confusion the finances of the Continent. They do not know what is going to happen, and they therefore hope for a great deal more than they will ever get, and therefore do not take the necessary financial measures. Not only is it intensely futile, but it is intolerably cruel to the population of Austria. My hon. Friend (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson), who is a great supporter of the Treaty, or, at any rate, looks upon it with more favourable eyes than I do, admits that this evil has been greatly increased by this provision. You are going to destroy the milch cow, as it were, for months to come. I ask myself: why was not the amount fixed? It has
been in the case of Bulgaria. I know of no reason except perhaps a very small difficulty of estimating the amount that should be paid. But I fail to see why there should be much more difficulty in the case of Austria than in that of Bulgaria. I know of no reason except the curious, and very bad doctrine, that the course adopted is the same as in the case of Germany. It is not only bad—but it is ridiculous!
Those who criticise are invariably asked, "What is your constructive policy?" I have protested more than once against that view as being one that of necessity can be taken, but I think there is in this case something to be said for it. We have the whole of the facts before us. I think anyone who deals with this subject should be prepared to indicate on what lines he would proceed. I therefore say that, in the first place, we must fix a reasonable amount of reparation, and that should be done immediately. We ought not to wait till May of 1921; it should be done instantly. The Reparation Commission have ample power to do it if they are prepared to. I quite agree with my hon. Friend (Sir S. Hoare) that you have to break down the economic barriers between these States. The thing is fantastic, indeed perfectly ridiculous. You have barriers not only between the States, but even between Provinces of the same State. You cannot trade at all. The present commercial and industrial system is an absurdity. You have, in my opinion, also to insist upon reasonable government, as far as you can, in these States. If accounts be true, the government in Hungary, at any rate, is very far from reasonable government. You have to insist that excessive military expenditure shall cease. This is most important. I would refer to what the Leader of the House said the other day with regard to Poland, in reply, I think, to a question, that the Government were not prepared to intervene in the internal affairs of Poland; or he used some phrase of that kind. I trust the Government are not going to persist in that somewhat Olympian attitude. It is really now part of our duty to re-establish peace in Europe. We cannot do that unless you get the thing upon a peace footing, and get a reasonable expenditure on armaments and things of that sort. I strongly believe that in these matters a good deal
could be done even now to persuade the States to adopt a reasonable attitude. I believe, with my hon. Friend, that sufficient attention was not paid to these topics by the Peace Conference in Paris, which should have said, "Now that we are giving you your independence for the first time, you must be more reasonable about these various matters." If that had been done, I think you could have got a great deal more than you have got in the way of acquiescence. You have something. I should like to see it done.
Yesterday, or the day before, we voted £26,000,000 for credits for trading with these States. Why should we not say to them: "You shall not have a farthing of any of these credits unless you behave reasonably in the matter of armaments and tariff barriers." You will have to do this. The House knows that the League of Nations is about to set up an International Financial Commission to consider all these questions. I hope that that Financial Commission will see its way to lay down very stringent rules as to any possible assistance that can be granted to these States unless they comply with the reasonable and simple requests of the International Conference. A great deal might be done in that way. I trust the Government will be able to give us some hope that their policy will be somewhat on these lines. I have been very much struck with the enormous power of economic influence in the conduct of States. Anyone who has followed carefully the course of action of these smaller European States in the past few months will agree that where the greater Powers have been vigorous and energetic in insisting upon reasonable action under pain of economic displeasure that very few States are prepared to risk that economic displeasure.
One other thing ought to be done. If you are going to get trade going in these countries and get them upon an economic footing, you have got immediately to raise the threat of reparation. I saw a scheme the other day which is familiar to many Members of the House, by which people are prepared to supply the raw material to be worked up, on conditions, in the factories of these States. At the present moment, I am informed, the scheme is held up because those sending the raw material are not certain whether or not it will be absorbed into the reparation claims. You must have some understand-
ing in this matter. Some kind of guarantee should be given by this Government, still better by the League of Nations, by the Reparation Commission, or some international authority, so that no such danger may be feared, for this will be a very important element in re-establishing the economic life of Europe. I urge that steps of this kind should be taken without delay.
I do venture to urge—perhaps with wearisome iteration—that there is no time to be lost if we are going to save Europe from economic disaster. Everyone who comes back from these countries tells much the same tale of horror. Yesterday I met an American gentleman, who says what others have said—that things are no better, but worse, and getting still worse from the economic point of view. Things are bad from the health point of view, and epidemics and starvation are spreading. If you do not intervene in time no one can tell the extent of the disaster and catastrophe that may take place. We cannot say: "We are not concerned with what may happen to these wretched people: they ought not to have gone into the War, and must suffer the consequences," and all the rest of it. Merely from the lowest point of selfish interest, it would be madness to allow Europe to disappear in economic confusion. Who can tell the economic effects if we are prepared to allow such a state of things to arise? I hope action will be taken on the lines I suggest. I do hope the Government will make a real effort to restore the peace atmosphere, and to get out of the war atmosphere altogether. I confess I read with some misgiving of the continuance of the Supreme Council. I would wish to see international relations put definitely into the hands of the League of Nations. Unless the League of Nations is to be a reality, unless it is really to have control of international affairs, it is not worth while to have brought it into existence. It must be an efficient organ of international relations if it is to be of any good. I do urge the Government, not only to approve of it, not only to support it by their speeches, but to show that they understand it and that they do really mean to make it an efficient organ of international relations, not only in this or that thing, but in everything which affects the international life in Europe and of the world.

Mr. BONAR LAW: There is one disadvantage in our discussion to-day, and that is that it must, from the nature of the case, be more or less academic, because, whatever be the opinions of those who have spoken, it is recognised that not to ratify the Treaty would be a greater evil than any other course that we can adopt. That is admitted even by my hon. Friend opposite, who practically said to us that he proposed to divide as a protest. Would that be a very useful proceeding? I, myself, should have thought that to challenge a Division when you would be sorry if you were successful was not a very wise proceeding, even for the House of Commons. I have listened with great interest to the speech of the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil). I agree with a great deal of it. I think, however, he started a little too much with the idea that this problem is simpler than it really is. He said—and the House agreed with him—that the last thing he would like to contemplate was a renewal of the Peace Conference in Paris. I can assure him that that is a feeling which I entirely share. He made one or two other remarks, which, in view of his acquaintance with the subject makes me feel that he does not quite realise how great were the difficulties. He told us, for instance, that the territorial adjustments were so simple that any sensible member of this House in five minutes or so could have taken a map of Europe, and have set out the boundaries.

Lord R. CECIL: Never! I did not say they were simple. On the contrary, I say they are extraordinarily difficult. What I did say was that the margin or difference between the two was not very large.

Mr. BONAR LAW: At all events, nothing could have been done without a good deal of discussion; but I will not proceed further than that. The Noble Lord in the course of his speech criticised very severely some of the alterations which have been made, so that even he did not agree with any other member of the House in the way the map should be drawn. However small the differences might be, however unimportant were those involved, I think my Noble Friend knows that in every case of this delimitation of boundaries there was the strongest feeling on the part of the nations affected. Members of the Peace Conference had to spend days and days in trying to get arrangements that would avoid friction. I shall try to
keep in view the criticisms that have been made, but in doing so I wish the House to realise that in a Treaty made after the collapse of Europe which has taken place there were so many Powers concerned, with such diverse interests, that it was impossible in almost every case to do other than to play one force against another—I do not mean political or non-political—but to try to get some arrangement which would carry the largest measure of agreement. The result otherwise would have been a Treaty which could not have been presented to the House of Commons. My hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Malone) takes the view that it was all the fault of King Ferdinand, and that the Bulgarian people had nothing to do with it. I take the view of my Noble Friend behind me (Lord R-Cecil) that if a nation backs its own Government up to these limits, you cannot free the nation from responsibility. We made every effort to induce Bulgaria to take the right side, but she took the wrong side from the point of view of the world to-day, and the wrong side from the point of view of the gratitude she owed for her own national existence. She took that view, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) has already said, because she was waiting on Providence, and taking the side which would lead to the extension of her own territory. In a democratic country, with democratic institutions, is it not futile to say that the course taken by Bulgaria was only the fault of the King, and not the fault of the people? My own view is that Bulgaria has come well out of it. It is down in the Treaty that we do recognise that Bulgaria must have an outlet to the Ægean Sea. We have given an undertaking that we will give it in a way that will be effective. We all agree that King Ferdinand played a deplorable part in this matter. In my view, and I think in the view of everyone who has gone through the history of the War, there is no single statesman who, against such frightful odds, supported the Allied cause as did M. Venizelos.
I have only one other remark to make about the Bulgarian Treaty. My hon. and gallant Friend said that the little strip of territory taken from Bulgaria and given to Serbia did not matter, because there was not a large population involved. He must have forgotten that
twice in recent years Bulgaria was the aggressor in war. If his statement is true, and if it brought Serbia nearer to the Bulgarian capital, at any rate, it kept Bulgaria further from the Serbian capital, and that does not seem unreasonable. My Noble Friend asked why we did not adopt the simple method of fixing the amount of indemnity in the case of Austria, as we did with Germany and Bulgaria. I may say that at the Peace Conference we began with a determination to fix the amount, and it was only as a last resort, after we found that we could not get a settlement, that we fell back upon the other plan. As regards Turkey, is there anyone prepared to say that he could at this moment fix a sum which would be just to the Allies? What we did was to leave it free to them to make a definite proposal as to the amount.
Is it any use in dealing with a question of this kind simply to look at the letter of the Treaty, and say, "You should not have done this or that." Is not the better course to consider what is the effect of it? Take the position of Austria. Our Reparation Commission has practically complete power. You can judge of the way in which that power may be used by the way in which it has been used up to the present. No one who knows the facts will contradict me when I say that never before has there been a case where a country like ours has been at war—and a war for which Austria was largely responsible—where such efforts have been made to meet the distress that has occurred in Austria. Even before the Treaty was presented to Austria, we were helping that country.
We have appointed a Reparation Commission, and we have put at the head of it Sir William Goode, who is worshipped in Austria for the help he has given to them. We have set up in Paris an Austrian Commission, which is going to Austria for the purpose of helping to reestablish the economic life of that country. Whatever you may think about the terms of the Treaty, when you see the spirit in which it is being worked, I do not think anyone can say with truth that we are not doing all we can to restore the economic condition of Austria. My Noble Friend referred to an answer which I gave about Poland, in which I said the British Government were not going to intervene. My Noble Friend was a member of the
Government long enough to know exactly what it means, because whenever you go to one of these countries in that manner they expect you to help them with money, or in some way to carry out the responsibilities they have undertaken. You cannot act like a schoolmaster, who can say to a boy, "Do this or that," for it is not possible. We cannot undertake responsibilities which we are unable to carry out.
Apart from this question of reparation there were two criticisms made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley about which I would like to say a few words. The first was in regard to the economic separation of the different parts of the Austrian Empire. My right hon. Friend said you ought to have insisted upon them having a common Customs union. I cannot believe that anyone who took any part in the Peace Conference would have said that for a single moment. As hon. Members know, I took a somewhat irregular part in that matter. I met gentlemen representing all these small States, and I can tell the House that the sense of dignity of the representatives of those States was not at all proportionate to their size and importance. I can assure the House that if you had to suggest to them now that they should have a Customs union for the rest of the Austrian Empire, whether they like it or not, they would at once say "What becomes of your self-determination, because you told us we should be quite free from Austria, and yet you are suggesting the imposition of conditions which would not be accepted in your own country."
We know what that means in Ireland, because it is one of the bitterest points of controversy in that country that they should have absolute freedom, and not a Customs union with us. If that be the case here, what would be the attitude of an independent nation to whom you said, "You must submit to that, whether you like it or not." Had we insisted upon that, we could not have carried through the Treaty at all. We have been told that the Government have other means of making these people reasonable. It is said we are giving them great assistance, and that we should tell them that they must be reasonable with their neighbours, and treat with them. That has already been done. In the case of Czechoslovakia, we made the condition, and it has been accepted, that they
should give foodstuffs to the other parts of the late Austrian Empire. Anything we can do by the use of our Commission we will do. We thoroughly recognise that the way in which these different parts of the Austrian Empire are keeping separate from each other is one of the great evils of the position in Eastern Europe, and that position will not be put right until this is altered. But it is really a very great mistake to suppose that that is the main cause of it. It is because there is scarcity everywhere that the interchange cannot be altered. In that connection, however desirable it might be to have this re-union of the old Austrian Empire, under the new conditions it is absolutely impossible.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley said, "Look at the ridiculousness of these small states creating and keeping armies." I agree that it is most deplorable, and I agree that we do really run the risk by such a policy of Balkanising Eastern Europe. Here again you are dealing with independent states, and it is really suggested that the great Powers for the sake of these small states should say that you are not to have any armies. But if you say to those who are our Allies, "You must have only a certain army," I would ask is there any independent State which would tolerate that? Take the case of Serbia. Suppose you said it to her. Would she not turn round and say, "Apply it to yourselves—apply it all round. What right have you to apply it to us if you do not apply it to yourselves?" I say that was a counsel of perfection, but the Treaty could not have been carried through had it been made a condition of it. I admit freely that unless there be this limitation of armaments then, in my judgment, this War will have been largely fought in vain.
The House must not forget, whether it be right or wrong, that these treaties with Germany and Austria have as part of them the constitution of the League of Nations. My Noble Friend has urged us

to make that a reality. It has not started well, but it is the fact that it is a corrective for a large part of these Treaties, and I say deliberately that most certainly it is the duty of this country to do everything in its power to make it effective. If it is not effective, then just as it is the basis of the Treaty, the Treaty will not be so good a Treaty as we had a right to expect it to be.

I venture to ask the House to come to a decision on the Second Reading before a quarter-past eight. We do not propose to take any further stages to-day, because a financial Resolution will be needed to make the Treaty an executive machine. I recommend this Treaty to the House, not merely on the ground that it would be fatal at this stage to reject it, but because—and here I may say I speak with the greatest freedom, for I had a very small part in the framing of the Treaty—I never saw men who went through so worrying a time, and had to deal with to many matters as did those who month after month were engaged in the framing of this Treaty. I do not ask the House to look at it from the point of view that it is an ideal Treaty, but I ask them to look at it from the point of view of the conditions left by the War, and of the number of interests involved. In my view, it is in those circumstances a Treaty which the House of Commons ought to ratify.

Colonel YATE: I only want to intervene for one moment and to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the very definite statement he has just made that Bulgaria is to be given an effective outlet to the Ægean. It may be that, Bulgaria went the wrong way in the War by the connivance of her Government, but at the same time I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's very definite statement that she is to have a proper outlet to the sea, and I thank him for it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 34.

Division No. 84.]
AYES.
[7.50 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Brown, Captain D. C.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Bigland, Alfred
Bruton, Sir James


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Campbell, J. D. G.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.


Atkey, A. R.
Borwick, Major G. O.
Cautley, Henry S.


Baird, John Lawrence
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Chadwick, R. Burton


Barnston, Major Harry
Brackenbury, Captain H. L.
Cheyne, Sir William Watson


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Breese, Major Charles E.
Coates, Major Sir Edward F.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Bridgeman, William Clive
Coats, Sir Stuart


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Purchase, H. G.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Jameson, J. Gordon
Rae, H. Norman


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Jephcott, A. R.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Jesson, C.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Courthope, Major George L.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Johnson, L. S.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Daizlel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)
Johnstone, Joseph
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Rodger, A. K.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kenyon, Barnet
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Dawes, James Arthur
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lloyd, George Butler
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Edgar, Clifford B.
Lloyd-Greame, Major P.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Edge, Captain William
Lonsdale, James Rolston
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)


Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)
Lorden, John William
Seager, Sir William


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Seddon, J. A.


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sexton, James


Fell, Sir Arthur
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Fildes, Henry
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Foreman, Henry
Macmaster, Donald
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


France, Gerald Ashburner
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Freece, Sir Walter de
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Galbraith, Samuel
Macquisten, F. A.
Stanton, Charles B.


Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Mallalieu, F. W.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Gardiner, James
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Sugden, W. H.


Gilbert, James Daniel
Middlebrook, Sir William
Sutherland, Sir William


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Mitchell, William Lane
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Glyn, Major Ralph
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Morrison, Hugh
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Mount, William Arthur
Tickler, Thomas George


Gregory, Holman
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Tootill, Robert


Gretton, Colonel John
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (A'deen)
Waddington, R.


Hallwood, Augustine
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Wallace, J.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nail, Major Joseph
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Neal, Arthur
Waring, Major Walter


Hancock, John George
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Nield, Sir Herbert
Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.


Hayward, Major Evan
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Parker, James
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pearce, Sir William
Wolmer, Viscount


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Hood, Joseph
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Woolcock, William James U.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Perkins, Walter Frank
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Perring, William George
Younger, Sir George


Hurd, Percy A.
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles



Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Prescott, Major W. H.
 Ward.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Lawson, John J.
Spencer, George A.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Lunn, William
Spoor, B. G.


Cairns, John
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Swan, J. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Myers, Thomas
Waterson, A. E.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Mills, John Edmund
Wignall, James


Finney, Samuel
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilkie, Alexander


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)



Grundy, T. W.
Robertson, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Royce, William Stapleton
Lieut.-Colonel Malone and Colonel


Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
 Wedgwood.


Hirst, G. H.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)



Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Harmsworth.]

Bill accordingly committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.

PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES (CAPITAL ISSUES) BILL.

DIVORCE LAWS.

Mr. RENDALL: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that legislative effect should be given without delay to the recommendations contained in the Majority Report of the Royal Commission on Divorce.
8.0 P.M.
In another place by a majority of more than two to one the proposals which I set forth have, in the form of the Bill, received a Second Reading, and already in the Press throughout the country there
has been almost unanimous support for changes of the kind which the majority of the members of the Royal Commission approved. It is not necessary to trouble the House with a history of divorce. The civil courts obtained control of divorce in 1857, and for practically 60 years there has been no real change in our divorce laws at all. Therefore it does not lie in the mouth of anyone to say that divorce reform has been in a hurry, and it is hardly surprising that after a lapse of 60 years it has been found that some change is necessary. The evils which were found to exist, and which the Government of the day thought did exist, were so great that a Royal Commission was appointed in 1909, which reported in 1912, and it is the report of the majority of members of that Commission, nine as against three who signed the minority report—10 were in favour of it, but Sir George White, then a Nonconformist Member of the House, died before signing it—which my Motion seeks to advocate. The evils which that Commission found proved and proposed remedies for were many. One of the principal ones was the difficulty, owing to cost, of making use of the divorce law. The Commission found that there was practically one law for the rich and one for the poor, and that those who could not afford to make use of the divorce law, which had to be made use of in London and nowhere else, were practically denied the value of it. Since the Commission reported there has been some slight improvement from the fact that poor persons' rules were made, whereby the applicant has been freed from certain legal charges supposing his income to be under £3 per week, and that I understand has been recently increased to £4 a week. As a matter of fact that particular pro vision, while it has made some difference, has not made a great difference except to persons living in or near London, because the cost of witnesses in places like Newcastle or Cornwall is so great that there is practically a denial of justice to thousands of persons who want to make use of divorce.
Two principles appear to me to underlie the finding of the majority of the Commission. They had to deal of course with the strongly expressed and sincerely held opinions of the Roman Catholic
Church, and certain sections of the Church of England, and it may be a small portion of other religious bodies. They found that there had been a conflict of opinion on these matters through the ages, and they laid down that it was essential that they should recommend to the legislature that in their action they should be unfettered by any other consideration than the interests of the State, society, morality, the parties and the children. Another fundamental principle of the Commission was that marriage ought to be dissoluble when, by universal admission, the fundamental purpose for which it had been entered into had been frustrated. When, in fact, it had ceased to be a reality it was the duty of the State to end it, not to please the parties, but in the real interests of the State and the children. The Commission recommended that there should be sex equality, and that there should be five new grounds for divorce, namely, desertion, cruelty, incurable insanity, habitual drunkenness, and the fact that sentence of death had been remitted. They recommended that three years' desertion should qualify a deserted person to obtain a divorce. In so doing they were merely following what has been the Scottish law for centuries. Whilst it is true that in Scotland the law demands four years' desertion, the majority of the Commissioners thought that three years was sufficient, on the ground that the means of communication had very much improved during the three centuries, and there was less excuse for a man deserting his spouse on that ground. The Commission found that there were thousands of deserted wives, and a large number of deserted husbands, who were placed, as they thought, in the impossible position of having no spouses, being unable to marry, and being, therefore, a danger to themselves and to the community. In regard to the general question of desertion, it must be made quite clear, and must be plain to the House, that in 99 cases out of 100 where a husband deserts his wife, it is practically certain that if he could be followed and his whereabouts discovered, he would be found to have committed adultery since he deserted his wife. In cases where the wife is a person of means, there is little difficulty in tracing her husband, and, in finding evidence of her husband's adultery. Under the present law she can get evidence of the two necessary grounds for divorce, namely, de-
sertion and adultery. That woman can get her divorce, but in the case of thousands of poor women who have not the means to follow their husbands, and who have no means to make inquiries which, as every lawyer knows, are very expensive, they are denied the opportunity of proving that their husbands have committed adultery, and as the law now stands they get no relief whatever. They can obtain a judicial separation, but they cannot get their freedom.
I ask the House to consider the position of a woman in these circumstances. Take the case of a young woman of 22 or 23 who is deserted and left with two children. Her former employment is practically denied to her, because she cannot embrace it again and look after her children, and I ask the House to say that it is reasonable that she should be granted a divorce and be enabled to marry again. That is opposed for many reasons, especially by members of the Established Church. I ask those members of the Established Church who are opposed to this suggested reform to look at their own marriage service, which lays it down that marriage is ordained for the procreation of children, as a remedy against sin and fornication, and that husband and wife may be a help and comfort one to the other. I ask them whether every one of these conditions is not frustrated by the husband who has deserted his wife for three years and has no intention of returning.
We are told that more mischief would be caused by an alteration of the law than now exists. When we ask what the dangers arc, we do not get any plain answer. The question was asked in the House of Lords, and no answer was forthcoming. How can it be injurious to the ideal of marriage if the law insists that when marriage fails, that when it is frustrated, that when the marriage is no marriage, the innocent party should be allowed to end it, and thereby be enabled, perhaps, to achieve a more ideal marriage? It seems to me that that is not to destroy marriage, but to make marriage what it ought to be. The alternative which is offered under the present law to the deserted woman is this: "You shall be a celibate for life. Do not sin. If you have to work and cannot keep your children, put them in the workhouse, and lose your home, your wifehood
and your children. All that is to be done so that you may, preserve other peoples' homes and the Church's ideal of marriage as a sacrement which must never be broken. You are to suffer these things because of the possible danger that might come to the present protected homes if the law is altered." I want to know what those possible dangers arc. I do not know. They do not exist, and I maintain that the House ought to grant a reform of this kind. If the woman is not prepared to be a celibate for life, if she is not prepared to do all these things, the alternative offered to her is that she must live as an adulteress and bring bastard children into the world, while the world and the Church points the finger of scorn at her. That is a barbarous conception of life, and a cruelly unnecessary one, and one which it is the duty of this House to get rid of.
We are told that to grant divorce for desertion will lead to endless collusion; that we shall have agreed desertion. Do hon. Members suggest that husband and wife are going to agree to leave one another for such a long period as three years in order to get a divorce at the end of that time? Human nature does not go in that way. We have evidence from Scotland. Lord Salvesen, the well-known Scottish judge, who gave evidence before the Commission, said that their law did not lead to collusion. In regard to sex equality the Minority Report agreed with the Majority Report. I agree with the Lord Chancellor, who expressed surprise at the fact that the Church accepts adultery as a proper ground for divorce and no other. We all say that adultery is a serious offence against the contract of marriage, but to suggest that the physical act of an hour or a night is really as likely to break up a home and to permanently frustrate all the objects of marriage as years of cruelty, years of habitual drunkenness, years of desertion, or even committal for murder, seems to be placing adultery in a more serious aspect in its effect upon the home than is justified. I am not trying to minimise adultery as a most serious offence; but the man who refuses to perform all the duties of matrimony, either by desertion or other misconduct, is certainly committing offences which are as great as, if not greater than, the offence of adultery. Hon. Members who are opposed to my motion are en-
tirely in favour of sex equality; that the wife shall have the right to divorce her husband for adultery. We are all agreed on that. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] At any rate, the consensus of opinion is in favour of that view.
When we come to the question of collusion, let it be made plain that the persons who we are told are going to try to arrange divorce by collusion are not going to wait three years for a concerted desertion. Of course, they will make use of this new law which we are all agreed must be passed in order to bring about equality between the sexes. We shall no doubt have that as one of the most universal and regular causes of divorce, and it will be one in which there will be collusion, and exaggerated collusion, and if there is collusion it will certainly be on that ground more than on any other. A further ground on which the Commission recommended that there should be divorce is cruelty. Cruelty comes under two heads. One, that one party cannot continue to cohabit with the other without dangers to life and limb, and the second ground is the giving of venereal disease by one party to the other. Everyone agrees that in such circumstances it is impossible for a husband and wife to go on cohabiting. The question is whether that ground is not a sufficient ground for divorce. It is said that a man and woman take one another for better or worse. I would ask hon. Members whether in the marriage of man and woman there is really any intention by either party to take the risk that the other party to the marriage will be a person who will be guilty of such inhuman cruelty as to make life unsafe for the wife or husband?
I do not think that that is a risk which any person thinks of taking, and this ground seems to me to be a clear reason why, after full inquiry by a competent court, the marriage should be terminated. I suggest this not only in the interests of the parties, but in the interests of the children. Children should not be brought up in a home where constant cruelty of an inhuman kind with danger to life and limb is going on. They cannot be brought up as decent members of society in such conditions. If you refuse divorce on such a ground, why do you refuse it? Are you to refuse it because marriage is a sacrament? You certainly cannot refuse it
because the marriage contract has not been broken. I suggest, therefore, that it is a perfectly good ground for divorce, as the Royal Commission says. In the other House it was suggested that it would be difficult to define "cruelty." Suggestions were made that it would be utterly impossible to define "cruelty." The Lord Chancellor said that he thought that there would be no difficulty in a plain definition. I think the same, and I have every confidence myself that the English judges, who are fair and competent, will be able to interpret that definition perfectly fairly as between the parties.
Another condition which the Royal Commission propose as a ground for divorce is incurable insanity lasting over five years. Into the details of this proposal I do not go, because the hon. Member for Liverpool (Colonel Raw), who will second my Motion, and who is a scientific man, will deal with that much more ably. Another ground was habitual drunkenness, which was to be proved, according to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, by the fact that a separation order had been made, and not until three years had elapsed under that order was it to be a ground of divorce, and then only after the court was satisfied that there was no likelihood of there being a future joint married life between the parties. The last ground was a commuted death sentence. When the State, through its courts, has decided to hang a man or a woman and later on by its clemency decides not to hang that person, that is a reason why the innocent wife or husband of the criminal should be freed from a marriage in which cohabitation cannot be resumed for twenty years, and free to make another marriage.
Some of my hon. Friends have advanced, as a difficulty in supporting my Motion, that it is proposed to approve of all the recommendations of the Royal Commission which are very numerous. My own view in putting down my Motion was that it amounts to a Second Reading acceptance of the majority proposals of the Royal Commission. I do not pledge myself, and personally I feel quite unpledged, to several of the recommendations if I vote for this Motion. I should feel just as if I had voted for a Bill of seventy or eighty Clauses. It does not mean that I approve of all these Clauses, but only that I approve of the principle on which the Bill is framed, that I give it a Second
Reading, and that afterwards I should be perfectly free to propose Amendments. I am told that one of my hon. Friends has handed in a manuscript Amendment in which he proposes to alter my Motion so as to read that it is desirable that legislative effect should be given without delay to the principle upon which the majority report of the Royal Commission is based. I should be perfectly happy to accept that Amendment. I have no desire to tie anyone to every line and comma of the recommendations, but at the same time I trust that hon. Members who are in favour generally of the Royal Commission Report will not, merely on account of the wording of my Motion appearing to include every single recommendation, oppose my Motion on that ground. The magnitude of this question is very considerable. Magistrates have made more than 300,000 separation orders between husband and wife during the twenty-one years up to 1915 on grounds which would mostly be good grounds for divorce. In addition there was a large number—I believe tens of thousands—of separation agreements between husbands and wives which have been largely made by reason of offences which would be a ground of divorce, being committed by one or other of the spouses.
In asking the House to support this Motion, I am asking it to take no untried road. Many of the proposals have been adopted in every other Protestant country in the world Therefore we are not in this matter going to make ourselves too unusual in our legal alterations. In reference to those persons who object because of their religious views, the Roman Catholic Church, as we all know, has always set its face absolutely against all divorce, and it has not found more difficulty, so far as I know, in making its adherents faithful to their religion in this country since our own divorce law was passed in 1867. Consequently, I cannot understand why those who have religious views against divorce should seek to interfere with what, I think, is desired by the great majority of the people of this country who have not got the same religious views. We are not seeking to interfere with the religious views or principles of any man or woman, but we do ask that they shall not on their part interfere with the religious views or the moral views of those who do not agree with them. There would be no
compulsion in the case of Roman Catholics or members of the English Church to make any use of the law if it is passed if their Church tells them that it is wrong, but those who do not think it wrong will make use of it.
I am quite satisfied that these reforms are moderate, that they are long overdue, that they will do an immense amount to relieve misery which exists all over England and Wales. I have had an immense number of letters, as other hon. Members have had, from persons who are suffering in this matter, and I am quite satisfied from that correspondence that these cases are real cases, and that if the law is so altered as to enable those persons to be relieved of their misery, nothing but good can result. I am satisfied that the law permitting separation by magistrates results in a vast amount of immorality and adultery and in a large number of illegitimate children being born, and in a great amount of sterilisation—it is between persons who may not legally marry. If we are to do what is our duty, we shall accept these reforms. So far as I am concerned, I am not in the least anxious to weaken the marriage law or to weaken its permanence. I say that boldly and sincerely, but the worst friends of any institution are those who try to defend what is indefensible in it. If we can only make marriage a real thing to all people, if we can destroy all the elements which the present law allows to exist in it, though they are bad, then I am sure we will make marriage stronger and a more real thing. I am certain that the proposals we make will strengthen marriage and that we shall put marriage upon an unassailable rock.

Lieut.-Colonel RAW: I beg to second the Motion.
I wish to make my position perfectly clear by saying at the outset that I am not in favour in any way of weakening the marriage tie in normal conditions. Circumstances arise, unfortunately, in a great many instances when it is necessary for us to consider the desirability and the urgency and the importance of making some alteration in our present divorce laws, both in the interests of the State and of the children, and more directly in the interests of the parties immediately concerned. I will limit my remarks to three recommendations of the Royal Commission Majority Report, namely, those in reference to incurable
insanity, habitual drunkenness, and the position of the person who is the wife or husband of one with a commuted death sentence. I propose to consider them more from the medical aspect than from any other. Take the case, first of all, of incurable insanity. In the United Kingdom we have, unfortunately, 140,000 persons who are certified as insane under the Lunacy Acts, and of that number 50,000; are suffering from what is called dementia, or degeneration of the brain itself. That disease is incurable. I venture to put before the House that this condition of dementia should be considered as a ground for divorce. Between 30,000 and 40,000 of those people are married, and in a very large number of instances the husband or wife may not know each other; in fact, a great many of them do not realise that they are married at all.
Out of a large experience amongst the insane, I may tell the House that I have never known any case of recovery from dementia which has lasted for the length of time mentioned, namely, five years. It is suggested by the Majority Report that after five years' detention under the Lunacy Acts a person who is suffering from this form of insanity should be examined at the request of wife or husband by a body of medical experts, who will then be satisfied as to whether or not the disease is curable. If they are satisfied it is incurable, that may be a ground for divorce. These cases are particularly hard amongst the poor. I have known a great many instances where a poor woman has unfortunately had her husband removed to the asylum suffering from this incurable insanity, whereupon she has had to struggle to maintain a home, to look after the children, and, generally, to lead a life of hard-working industry to the end of her days. As the law stands, these poor women have no relief whatever. They may visit their husbands, who in many cases do not know them, and that continues to the end of life. I will not suggest that any other form of physical or mental disease should be a ground for divorce except the particular one I have mentioned, because this form is an incurable form, and there cannot possibly be any relief. The sufferer may live for 40 or 50 years before death comes. The law recognises insanity as a ground for taking possession of the property of the insane
person and also for taking charge of the insane person himself. For that reason, I think that incurable insanity ought to be made a ground for divorce.
Another form of mental disease, epilepsy, is a most distressing condition, and certainly I hope the day will come when marriage will be prohibited to those suffering from it and from other forms of mental disease, if only on the ground of the value to the State of healthy people, whereas, as we know, heredity plays a very important part in the production of all mental disease. I now come to the question of habitual drunkenness, which destroys the very basis of married life. It is proposed that after a separation order has been granted, and that order has been in force for three years, if the drunkenness continues, and there is no evidence of any improvement, then the husband or wife may petition for divorce. I would like to read the words of the Majority Report of the Commission with regard to drunkenness:
It seems probable from the evidence given before us that habitual drunkenness produces as much, if not more, misery for the sober partner and the children of a marriage as any other cause in the list of grave causes. Such inebriety carries with it loss of interest in surroundings, loss of self-respect, neglect of duty, personal uncleanliness, neglect of children, violence, delusions of suspicion, a tendency to indecent behaviour, and a general state which makes companionship impossible. This applies to both sexes, but, in the case of a drunken husband, the physical pain of brute force is often added to the mental and moral injury he inflicts upon the wife. Moreover, by neglect of business and wanton expenditure, he has power to reduce himself and those dependent upon him to penury. In the case of a drunken wife, neglect of home duties and the care of the children, waste of means, pawning and selling possessions, and many attendant evils, produce a most deplorable state of things. In both cases the ruin of the children can be traced to the evil of parental example.
It is said on very high authority, by those who have had great experience in cases of the kind, that from ninety to ninety-five per cent. of habitual drunkards die drunkards. It has been shown by long experience that if habitual drunkenness continues for three or four or five years without any evidence of improvement there is practically no possibility or hope of any cure. In my opinion these two conditions, which are unfortunately so prevalent, incurable insanity and habitual drunkenness for three years, are certain
grounds for petition for divorce. The only other matter I wish to speak about is the position of the wife or husband of one who has been sentenced to death and reprieved. I have seen cases of that sort, and I think there is nothing more distressing than, say, that an innocent woman has to remain the wife of a convict for twenty or twenty-five years, and that she is in such an impossible position that she has to continue to be the legal wife of the person so convicted without any possible means of improvement. With those observations I beg to put forward those three points for the very careful consideration of the House.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I beg to move to leave out from the word "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof the words, "while it is desirable to place the sexes on a footing of equality in regard to divorce, any change in the law that would impair the permanence of the marriage contract would be harmful to the best interests of the community."
My hon. Friend who introduced this Motion in the concluding words of his speech somewhat modified the Resolution as it appears on the Paper, but I do not think that will of itself make any difference to the attitude which I am going to invite the House to take. He quite fairly told us he does not pledge himself to every recommendation, and he asks us, to use his own words, to give a Second Heading to the principle of the Majority Report. He showed quite clearly from his speech that he, at all events, accepts all the main recommendations of the Majority Report. I think my hon. Friend and those who act with him in this matter are making a mistake, which is not uncommon amongst zealous and enthusiastic reformers, and that is that they are sacrificing much valuable reform that they might get by consent in order to grasp at something which they think desirable, but which must inevitably provoke very bitter controversy. I would like to outline to the House the amount of common ground there is between us in order that we may see exactly what my hon Friend is prepared to sacrifice for the pure joy of fighting. In the first place, if he had been prepared to be content with the Minority Report, which is part of the larger Report, and therefore represents the agreement of the whole body, he might have had a complete reform of the judicial machinery for deal-
ing with divorce. That is an extremely important matter, because it involves the decentralisation of the administration of justice as to divorce, carrying with it the cheapening of the process so as to bring the advantages of divorce where they are required within reach of all. Secondly, he might have obtained by consent all the suggested grounds for decrees of nullity, which would cover a good deal of ground and of which complaint is justly made. Lastly, he might have obtained that which I think we are all agreed should be granted, and which I have specifically incorporated in my Amendment, namely, the placing of the two sexes on a position of equality as regards the obtaining of divorce. Not only would that have been as I contend a very large gain, even from the point of view of my hon. Friend, but I contend it would have practically satisfied any demand of which there is any evidence in the country.
I notice that in the Debate in the other place, to which my hon. Friend referred, the Archbishop of Canterbury said that he had gone to the labour of examining not merely the Reports, but the evidence on this point, and that practically all the evidence relied upon by the Commissioners, as showing the existence of a demand, when examined showed that the grounds of the demand were first that the sexes should be placed on an equal footing, and secondly, that in the matter of expense divorce should be brought within the reach of all classes. Consequently, an agreement on the basis of the Minority Report would have obtained everything for which there is a real demand. But my hon. Friend insists that immediate legislative effect should be given to suggested new grounds for the granting of decrees of divorce. He very naturally relied on the authority which attaches to the great Commission which examined this question. On that point I would call attention to the very significant speech which was made in the Debate in another place by Lord Gorell. Lord Gorell, of course, spoke with, in a way, hereditary interest in the matter. His distinguished father was chairman of that Commission, and one could not expect that he would with alacrity separate himself from the views of his father. And yet he said he believed if his father were now alive, although he might not feel himself at liberty to vote against the Bill which was brought
into the other place, and which was practically the same proposal as that of my hon. Friend here, nevertheless, he was sure his father would not press it with any insistence or urgency. He went on to say:
Since the issue of the two Reports the public have had the opportunity of crystallising their views. They have been able to read the evidence, and I do not think it is possible to say that opinion has crystallised solidly in favour of the Majority Report.
9.0 P.M.
In that Debate in the other House a speech was made to which my hon. Friend more than once referred, and which appears to have specially made an impression. That was the speech of the Lord Chancellor. I read the speech made by the Lord Chancellor, and I found that it was characterised by all the vehement eloquence and engaging audacity which is characteristic of my Noble and Learned Friend. But he did more than that. He represented himself as being, I will not say more Royalist than the King, but more spiritual than the Archibishop. In fact, one might imagine that the Woolsack was a veritable chariot of fire which carried the occupants up into the clouds, leaving the poor Prelates and other unfortunate beings stranded in the carnal atmosphere of mother earth. But what was the practical residuum which was deposited after the evaporation of all this emotional eloquence? This was the proposition by which the Lord Chancellor manfully said he would stand or fall, that the spiritual and moral sides of marriage are incomparably more important than the physical side. I imagine that no one is likely to deny that. I do not believe it would be denied, even by an Archbishop, but what is the deduction that is drawn from this proposition by Woolsack logic? The Lord Chancellor says that no one can assent to that proposition who opposes the Majority Report, and why? Because those who oppose the Majority Report will allow divorce for breach of the physical obligations of marriage, but they will not allow it for breach of the spiritual and moral obligations of marriage. Does the Lord Chancellor himself propose to grant divorce for breach of spiritual and moral obligations? Nothing of the sort, and for this very obvious reason, that spiritual and moral obligations are not susceptible of being weighed in the scales of Judicial pro-
ceedings, except, of course, in so far as they may be involved in or manifested by acts of physical conduct. Let hon. Members look at the definition, for example, of cruelty on page 71 of the Report, and they will find that cruelty is conduct which involves, among other things, risks to bodily or mental health. There, one may suppose, you are perhaps approaching within a measurable distance of spiritual and moral obligations. What is cruelty which involves a risk to mental health? Does it include cruel, cutting words, continual, scornful criticism, hectoring reproaches, petty dictatorial tyranny, derisive trampling upon the ideals or the spiritual beliefs of the other party to the marriage? Does it involve any of these things? Those are all matters of cruelty infinitely more intolerable to any sensitive soul than mere bruises, which you can exhibit to a jury, but they are not dealt with. No relief whatever is granted for such breaches. If there be any doubt lest a court should be free, if it were possible, to examine such cruelty as that, the definition goes on to say that the court must be satisfied that it was no longer reasonably safe for the applicant to reside with the respondent. Obviously, therefore, although, of course, that is a very serious state of things, at all events it is purely physical cruelty, and I cannot see how the Lord Chancellor is justified in taking the high ground he did in the circumstances.
Even although I take it that every one of us would agree with the Lord Chancellor about the moral and spiritual obligations of marriage being infinitely more important than the physical, from what I have said I maintain that it is not true, as the Lord Chancellor said, that the Majority Report lays it down that marriage ought to be dissoluble upon any grounds which frustrate what, by universal admission, are the fundamental purposes of marriage. It does not do anything of the sort. It does not touch, and it cannot touch, just those aspects of cruelty, or interference, or frustration of married life on the moral and spiritual side which the Lord Chancellor and others would have us believe that the recommendations are intended to deal with. But even on the physical basis, upon which the Lord Chancellor and the Majority Report and my hon. Friend are all agreed to proceed, there is absolutely no principle discoverable upon which divorce may be granted. The recommendations
present us with a more or less arbitrary, haphazard catalogue of actions which will result in varying degrees of hardship on the partner in a marriage upon whom they are inflicted, but there is no principle. Take the case to which my hon. Friend referred under the head of cruelty, the case of venereal disease. It is a very serious thing, but, to begin with, it is quite unnecessary to put it in as one of the grounds of cruelty, because under an agreed Bill it is already being laid down and accepted that venereal disease contracted before marriage would be a ground for nullity, whereas, if contracted after marriage, it might be accepted as conclusive evidence of adultery upon which a decree might be granted. The point, however, I want to make is the absence of principle. Unless it is on account of the moral taint which attaches to that particular disease, I cannot understand why it should be singled out. As far as cruelty is concerned, I do not know that there are not other communicable diseases that are as bad, certainly so far as danger to life and to the children is concerned. Speaking entirely as a layman, I imagine that the doctors would say that tuberculosis was a disease which might just as well be a ground of divorce as one of these more disgusting diseases.
My hon. and gallant Friend who seconded the Motion spoke with authority about drunkenness; but why is drunkenness singled out? Why is divorce to be granted because one of the parties to the marriage is habitually intoxicated, whereas no relief is given whatever for the still greater vice of morphomania? The only distinction is that one vice is certainly more widespread than the other, but is there any ground for such a distinction? "Certainly the Lord Chancellor could not take that distinction, because he poured out the most bitter vials of his sarcasm on the Archbishop of York for saying, with relation to the case of commuted sentences, that that only applied to a mere handful, and the Lord Chancellor said, "I should have thought it was hardly right to count heads in a matter of right or wrong"; yet neither the Lord Chancellor nor the Majority Report offer the slightest relief to a home that may be desolated by the cocaine habit or by morphomania, for no reason discoverable except, perhaps, that there are not so many homes desolated by cocaine as there are homes desolated by
beer. I must say something about the case of desertion to which my hon. Friend referred. This desertion, as a ground of divorce, is, I think, generally advocated because there are said to be an immense number of pitiable cases of deserted wives whom it would relieve. Here again the Lord Chancellor said that tens of thousands of people at this moment are in this very position. Curiously and unlawyerlike, the Lord Chancellor offered no evidence in support of his opinion, and, by avoiding evidence, he enabled the right reverend Prelates to have their revenge. While in one particular, as I have said, the Lord Chancellor represented himself as more of a divine than the Archbishop, the Archbishop now showed himself to be more of a lawyer than the Lord Chancellor, because the Archbishop of Canterbury proceeded to call evidence. He summoned witnesses—expert evidence on the point—and he went into it seriatim, giving the facts obtained by inquiries from a number of well-informed sources—from societies working among poor people who ought to be familiar with them. I will only mention one of these witnesses, a lady working at Portsmouth, where one would have imagined that a great proportion of these wives, deserted by overseas soldiers—that was the most significant case that was made—would have been found. Yet this lady said that although the office in which she worked had had records of 30,000 families since 1914, there were only 15 cases which came within the description given by the Lord Chancellor. The inference that we must all draw is that a great number of these statements are extremely exaggerated, and before any great attention is paid to them they ought to be subjected to that sort of examination which they did get at the hands of the Archbishop.

Mr. RENDALL: If the hon. Member will look at the Archbishop's speech, he will see that the Archbishop quoted from statistics given at Portsmouth and elsewhere. He had no knowledge of the number of deserted wives in England who had made application.

Mr. R. McNEILL: I do not suppose that such statistics could be obtained. All I say is that the Archbishop did go to a number of societies who in the nature of the case would be more likely to have knowledge of these matters than
anybody else, and certainly a great deal more likely than the Lord Chancellor. My hon. Friend rightly said that we who are opposed to his Motion hold and hold very strongly that the proposals which he has put before us would lead to an immense increase in collusion. It is no answer to say that collusion takes place already. We all know that it does. It is a very deplorable scandal. That is all the more reason why we should not necessarily go out of our way to give every possible facility for increasing the collusion which already exists. My hon. Friend says that in the case of desertion no one would want to use collusion, because of the delay of three years. As against that, let me quote what was said by a very competent witness, Mr. Barnard, K.C., who was for years the leader of the Divorce Court practitioners. His observation was this:
I think if you have divorce by desertion it is practically coming to divorce by consent.
That is an opinion to which this House ought to pay a very great deal of attention. Under the definition to which I have already referred, cruelty is to be a ground of divorce. Imagine an undefended case in which a woman comes before the Court and says that she has suffered physical violence at the hands of her husband. No Court in the world can test that evidence. It has to be accepted at its face value. Therefore, there is nothing easier in the world than for an arrangement to be made, if the parties desire to do so, to provide evidence of some purely fictitious, or qualifying, cruelty, by which divorce may be granted. Although I quoted just now the opinion of an eminent Divorce Court practitioner, I would like to say that I think in this controversy a great deal too much weight is attached to the opinions and views and experiences of judges and counsel practising in the Divorce Court, and that includes even the distinguished man who presided over this Commission. Judges and advocates who appear in the Divorce Court, and spend their whole professional life there, very naturally look at the whole of this subject from the standpoint of their own experience. They can hardly do otherwise. They look at it from the standpoint of marriages that have proved hopeless failures. Day after day these
men have to listen to revelations of domestic unhappiness and wrong-doing, which we all know—we deplore it—often inflict the most frightful hardships on perfectly innocent people. They perceive how, under a different law, some part of this misery of individuals might be avoided. What, therefore is more natural, what is even more honourable to them, than that, with their eyes fixed exclusively on that aspect of the problem, they should be anxious at all times to make the changes in the law which they see would bring about that result.
There is, however, a wholly different standpoint from which this problem may be regarded. My hon. Friend, who opened this Debate, challenged us to say what evils would result from giving relief such as he desires in these very hard cases which we all admit. I say that the standpoint which the judges and the counsel never consider, and which my hon. Friend never considered and never referred to—I invite the House to take the same view—is the standpoint which ought to be the governing consideration of the whole question. I mean the standpoint of the marriages that are not failures. How will they be affected? Apparently, that thought never crossed my hon. Friend's mind. It never occurred to him that they would be affected one way or the other. He did not even refer to them. It is impossible to say to what are the proportions between marriages that are a success and marriages that are a failure. My hon. Friend who seconded the Motion (Lieut.-Colonel Raw) gave some figures with regard to those who should be relieved on the ground of insanity, but, according to all the evidence available, they would amount to a comparatively few thousand. The married couples in the Kingdom number between 9,000,000 and 10,000,000, and I am perfectly certain it is a question of thousands on one side and millions on the other as between these two classes.
I want to indicate how I think that those marriages would be affected by these proposals. The settled law on a matter fundamental to society such as this underlies the instincts that fashion standards of conduct. If you disturb those foundations, the instincts must adjust themselves to the new conditions. For generation after generation the people in this country have accepted, as a
matter of course, both consciously and sub-consciously, that marriage is an irrevocable step in life, just as they accept death as the inevitable destiny of us all. It lies at the root of our thoughts upon life. I must qualify that with one exception. The people have accepted—I think it is a very significant point in this present controversy—that there shall be the exception of adultery as a cause for dissolving marriage, and that exception presents itself to their minds, whether rightly or wrongly, as being derived from the highest religious authority that they know. Coming to them in that way, and accepted upon that basis, that exception really enforces and emphasises the rule. The vast majority of marriages, let us remember, are neither romantic and ideal successes on the one hand, nor are they dismal, unhappy failures on the other. Let us say that the vast majority are a good deal below the level of the Brownings and a little higher, perhaps, than the Carlyles. They are what we may call the average humdrum marriages, and in those marriages countless numbers, in my belief, avoid failure precisely because the couples realise from the first that they are united for better or for worse, and they have the good sense to make up their minds that if they can help it, it shall be for better and not for worse. They have learnt the lesson of a very wise little book which had vogue some short while ago on "How to be happy though Married." They have learnt to give-and-take in the interests of a quiet life. They acquire the habit of toleration of each other's foibles and failings, and, in course of time, mutual consideration ripens into esteem, and then, even in the absence of any deep affection, renders these two people indispensable one to the other.
But how would those marriages fare if from the first that instinct of permanence did not exist in their minds; if it wtre known from the first moment they left the church or registry office that at any time, without incurring disgrace or reproach, that union could be terminated as easily as they could terminate the tenancy of the house in which they lived? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That would be the result. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The whole sense of secure permanence in the relationship on which family life rests would be gone, and in a great many of these cases the first quarrel that led to
angry words would simply put an end to the union which, under present conditions, bad as they are, would have remained one of average contentment, and happiness. The changes, perhaps, are very often advocated as if they were mainly and principally in the interests of women. I myself am confident that it is women who would be the chief sufferers if the changes were carried. And let us remember this—and it is an important point, to my mind, in this controversy. Constancy is a virtue which is less characteristic of men than it is of women, but the attributes that attract the opposite sex wither more rapidly in the female than in the male.

Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear.

Mr. McNEILL: I am very glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth agree with that. In my judgment, if you seriously undermine the sense of permanence, and allow the general instinctive feeling of the population to be that marriage has no definite permanence at all, it is the women whose youth has disappeared who will be the victims, and I believe the intuition of the women of this country enables them thoroughly to grasp that point, and for that reason they will be found hostile to the Motion of my hon. Friend. But one thing is quite certain. I see it stated in the Press that if this Motion were carried in this House to-night, Lord Buckmaster's Bill or another Bill might be carried into law this Session. I suggest this to the House. Women, who are vitally interested in this matter, have just been enfranchised. It would be an absolute outrage upon the women of this country if such a proposal as this were carried into law before they had an opportunity of pronouncing upon it in the ballot boxes.
Before I conclude, there is just one point upon which I feel I must say a word. My hon. Friend touched upon it towards the close of his speech. We cannot disguise from ourselves that, whatever our views upon this question may be, it is not entirely a social or a political, or even an ethical question. It is a religious question. I am very well aware that differences of opinion prevail among theologians as to whether this particular question with regard to divorce is, or is not, settled once for all for those who accept the highest authority known to Christianity. That is a matter upon which each man must decide for himself. I can
only say for myself I freely confess that I should feel myself bound by that authority, even if there were not, as I think there are, conclusive reasons which I have endeavoured to outline to the House, both in principle and in expediency against the proposals which have been made. But, however that may be, you cannot make these changes without violating the deepest religious sentiments of vast numbers of people in the country in every religious denomination, and it is for that reason, among others, that I myself, who wish to see reforms to which I referred at the outset—the reforms of procedure and of equality between the sexes—deplore that my hon. Friend has thought it necessary to make a proposal, which certainly can never be carried without exciting most widespread, most deep, and most bitter controversy.

Mr. EVELYN CECIL: My hon. Friend, who has asked me to second the Amendment, which he has moved in one of the very best speeches, if he will allow me to say so, I have heard him deliver in this House, has covered the ground with great fulness, and, indeed, has left me very little to say. I fancy, perhaps, he may have asked me to second his Amendment because he and I have been at the opposite polls in respect of the question of women suffrage. But I have always felt that the great strength of that agitation, perhaps beyond all others, was this question of the want of equality in the divorce laws, and that gave it a great deal of the impetus which it received. Like him, I am heartily in favour of making the divorce laws equal for both sexes. Like him, I am anxious that the cost of divorce for all classes should be as near as possible the same, and should be cheap. Like him, perhaps more particularly, I am most anxious that we should, if possible, all come to an agreement to press through the recommendations in the Minority Report. I think so much can be done in that respect. These questions do arouse great feeling among the different classes of the community, but we should all agree in removing real hindrances and difficulties if we agreed upon a Bill that would give effect to the Minority Report, and I cannot help thinking that that course would be far better than to arouse the controversy which my hon. Friend's Motion must necessarily
create. I want to emphasise, with all the language I can, how much more desirable that course would be.
Let us go along the path of least resistance from the point of view of those who believe in the Majority Report. Let us go, perhaps, in some respects further than some of those who, more or less, support the Minority Report would really go if left to themselves. If both sides can be got to agree on that line of action, I think this House would really pass a useful piece of legislation. The Mover of the Motion has pressed the advantages, as he says, and has shown five new grounds for divorce—desertion, cruelty, insanity, habitual drunkenness, and long imprisonment. It is an old adage that hard cases make bad law, but it is uncommonly true in the present case. Of course you could bring up numerous instances. There were brought before the Royal Commission very hard cases and some very sad cases. I daresay some of us even know personally such cases. I say, of my own knowledge of more than one case of this kind, that I am quite certain that I speak for the parties concerned in stating that they would rather not see these alterations made than shake the whole foundations of the marriage laws of this country.
As I understood the Mover of the Resolution he seemed astonished that those of us who take the line that I am taking would admit any ground at all for divorce. I think he can hardly be aware that the reason that we take this line is the very simple one contained in the 19th chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel and the 9th verse. I need not refer to it more, but everyone knows that the Divine teaching is set forth in that verse, that adultery is the cause for divorce there given, and that no other causes are allowed. When he comes forward, as he does to-night, with such causes as three years' desertion, I frankly confess he makes me shudder. I do not know what this may lead to. I think he dropped the information, which I did not know before, that three years had been inserted instead of four or five owing to the more rapid means of communication which now exist. I do not know what number of years will be allowed when we all travel by aeroplane, but I presume that even shorter time will be argued by the hon. Gentleman as being perfectly reasonable. If three years desertion is to be allowed, I am quite
certain, so far as one can form an opinion, that it will lead to collusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury touched very eloquently upon that point. He said that divorce by desertion really came to mean divorce by consent. I do not know how many wives in that case an unscrupulous man would get or what would be the position of the children who might be born.
These changes, we are told—and I saw it in the Press yesterday—were necessary because of "human needs"—that was the expression used—and to keep in touch with the spirit of the twentieth century. I deplore the spirit of the twentieth century if this is the kind of thing that it is going to bring about. It seems to me that it savours much more of the old Adam than it does, let us say, of Thomas à Kempis, and I hope that is not putting it in an offensive form. It shows that we are endeavouring much more to consider our own self-complacency and selfishness, or what we think is best personally, than any very high moral tone, or the character of the nation. We see the results which have occurred in America. I read only the other day of a judge in one of the States resigning his position. He had administered the divorce laws, but he had got very disgusted with the immense increase of these cases. When we see in other countries, too, what has occurred by way of increase in divorces, how it does not improve either the standard of the family or the national life, I think we ought to be very chary before we make such vast changes as are proposed. After all, any relaxation of the marriage laws strikes absolutely at the basis of the family. It loosens the foundation of the family upon which the whole system of our State and community is built. If I oppose these proposals, it is because I want to build up the character of the nation rather than to lower it, to maintain a high standard of moral life in private as well as in public life, and I do not want to violate the religious feelings of a vast number of our fellow citizens of all denominations, which we assuredly should do if these proposals were passed into law.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I desire, with the permission of the House, to intervene in this Debate for a very few minutes. In doing so I cannot make it too clear that any
views which I express are my own personal views, and do not commit in any way any of my colleagues who sit upon this Bench. The Vote which the House is to take is to be a free and unfettered Vote upon this question, and the Government Whips accordingly will not be put on. I am bound to say that I myself feel, notwithstanding what has fallen from my hon and right hon. Friends in the last two impressive speeches to which we have listened, in agreement with the terms of the Motion moved by the hon. Member below the Gangway. The proposals which are contained in the Motion are, I fully recognise, of capital and far-reaching importance, but I think that the measure of their importance is also the measure of their urgency. There are two outstanding facts, as it seems to me, which one must bear in mind. The first is that it is not seriously contended in any quarter that divorce should not be granted upon any ground at all. The second fact is that it is not now, as I understand, seriously contended that the existing divorce law of this country is satisfactory and should remain unaltered—in other words, the dice are to be no longer loaded against the woman. These two facts are outstanding facts which one cannot ignore in the conduct of the argument. Accordingly, the question before the House is not whether there should be divorce on no grounds at all, nor whether the existing law is or is not perfect; it is rather, assuming that there shall be divorce on specified grounds, assuming that the existing law is unsatisfactory, what alterations, what changes, have to be made in it? The House will consider, I think, that that is the question.
The alteration to be made, according to the mover of the Motion, is of several kinds. Having regard to the exigencies of time, I propose to restrict any observations I make to one only of those proposals—the proposal that the law of England should be altered by permitting divorce on the ground of desertion. Accordingly, I only propose to deal with the speeches already delivered so far as they relate to that particular matter. When it is proposed to alter the law in any country, one of the best tests to be applied to the proposal made is the test of experience. If the reform which is proposed has already been in operation
for a long time in a country where the conditions are not dissimilar from those obtaining in England, I think a powerful weapon is placed in the hands of those who advocate that reform. Such a weapon is available to those who support this proposal in the Motion which has been moved by my hon. Friend.
In Scotland, just across the border, divorce on the ground of desertion has been the law of the land for well nigh four centuries—to be precise, since 1573—and none of those awful consequences pictured in the arguments which have been used in so far as they relate to collusion or other sinister processes, have been found to exist in the law and practice of Scotland. Why then weigh ponderously the views of the Early Fathers of the Church or appeal to the experience of the Church of Ephesus when the views and experience of your neighbours across the border are definite and clear? I think we had better define our terms. What is meant by desertion? I received a circular this morning from the English Divorce Council, and I find this statement with regard to the proposal that divorce should be granted for desertion after three years:
Any wife can leave any husband, or vice versa, whenever they like, for no reason whatever, and for any reason, and at the end of three years an application for divorce can be successfully made.
With all respect to the writer I say that a more complete and grotesque travesty of the proposal which is made in this Motion could not have been formulated. The proposal is simply this, that the law of England should be what the law of Scotland is to-day. I claim to have some right to speak of the operation of this law in Scotland after some 23 years' professional experience in the practice of the Courts and a good deal of observation of the operation of the law in Scotland. What do we mean by desertion? Perhaps it will be easier for me to explain what desertion does not mean. It does not mean separation by consent. The separation must be obstinate and malicious. The one spouse must be willing to conform to the obligations of matrimony while the other spouse refuses to do so. Again, desertion does not mean separation with reasonable cause. If a husband has absented himself on business from his wife in another country, that will not be a ground for
divorce on the ground of desertion, however long it may continue. The conclusion one reaches is that collusion has been reduced to an irreducible minimum in Scotland in dealing with cases of this kind, and the law has been administered there with vigilance and discrimination all these centuries. This particular reform has stood the acid test of time in Scotland for 350 years, and no one in Scotland would dare to propose to abridge the operation of that law; in fact, many people would on the other hand propose to extend it. Surely the law of Scotland in this particular matter is in accord with common sense and fair play. One of our old institutional writers many years ago wrote:
Malicious desertion is as manifest a violation of the conjugal vow as adultery, and, in expediency and justice, it ought to be visited with punishment equally heavy to that meted out to adultery.
Surely he is right. Desertion for three or four years involves a complete and emphatic and deliberate repudiation of the whole contract of matrimony. It involves, as has already been pointed out, the frustration of the three purposes of matrimony set out in the Church Service. The deserted spouse is condemned to a life of celibacy or a life of concubinage. The husband leaves his wife to earn her own living by the sweat of her brow, or to subsist on the charity of her friends. He does not care. He leaves her with, perchance, a large family to bring up in destitution and want. He is indifferent. Is that in the interests of the community? I suggest that there must and ought to be a remedy in the interests of the community for a state of affairs such as that. Another of our writers said:
Public feeling is strongly against increasing the number of persons living as single and yet not free to marry—husbands without wives and wives without husbands.
The offence of desertion as interpreted in the Courts of Scotland is more rank than the offence of adultery. Adultery may be the result of momentary passion. Desertion for years is attended by every circumstance of cold and calculated and cruel deliberation. Marriage under such circumstances is not a sacrament, but a mockery. I beg the House in this matter very earnestly to follow the lead of Scotland. None of the con-consequences which have figured and been feared in this Debate have occurred
in Scotland by the institution of divorce on the ground of desertion. My hon. Friend (Mr. R. McNeill) knows Scotland, and I ask him, is Scotland to-day less moral or religious than England because of the system of divorce which obtains there? Is the contract of matrimony less sacred? I do not think any hon. Member of this House will give an affirmative answer to that question. I ask, why should the women of England remain in bondage to husbands who have violated every obligation of the marriage contract and of social morality, while their more fortunate sisters across the Border are accorded a liberty which I think justice and expediency alike demand. You may give the women of England a vote, you may make them eligible to serve on juries, and to become Justices of the Peace. You may give them all those, privileges, but so long as they are denied this equality with their sisters across the Border, all talk of equality is a mere sham and a mockery. I have purposely restricted myself in the interests of time to this one particular ground. I do ask the House most respectfully and most earnestly to weigh the arguments that have been laid before it by my hon. Friend who opened the Debate and by my hon. Friend who seconded him, because I believe this discussion will have far-reaching consequences.

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): In my somewhat long experience of the House of Commons I have always found that when a report has been passed by a large majority, after reference to a Royal Commission, feeling in the House is intensely in favour of any Resolution submitted afterwards with regard to carrying out those proposals. But I think that on this occasion we are dealing with a rather peculiar question, and one which does not come under a law of that kind. Reference has been made tonight to the Debate in the House of Lords, and my hon. Friend who moved this Resolution in a speech of great moderation referred to the fact that the case was strengthened by the Division taken in the House of Lords last week with reference to a Bill brought forward by an ex-Lord Chancellor and supported on its Second Reading by the present Lord Chancellor. But taking
into account the total number of Noble Lords who voted on that occasion—142 out of a total of nearly 700—I do not think that that argument can carry much weight. After the great speech made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who treated the subject from the secular point of view almost entirely, withholding the religious aspect, perhaps it might be considered that I take a curious position when I say it seems to me impossible to divorce the question of religion from this subject of the alteration of our divorce laws. In the few words I am going to address to the House to-night I should like to say, in the first place, how much I am in accord with what fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) on the religious point of view. I would much rather not speak on this occasion, because I think it is always difficult to talk about religion in the House of Commons. It appears to some extent to introduce personality, which, to a man who has the Christian belief, is very difficult. But it is quite impossible at the present time, without a re-arrangement of the social life of this country, to carry out to the full what we believe to be literally the words of Christ, for instance—
Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
It would be impossible for the greatest Saint in the world to carry out what was said by the Founder of Christianity Himself in regard to this question. We know there has never been in the history of this country anyone who has ever suggested any other version than that which has been put before the House to-night. There have been many controversies in the past in regard to this question, and many hon. Members will remember the controversy which occurred years ago in regard to the position of the innocent party, but there is no version of the teaching of Christ which does not forbid divorce except on the one and only ground of adultery. I am supporting what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury with regard to the cheapening of divorce and the question of the inequality of the sexes. It is suggested that if this resolution is carried to-night a Bill may be brought in to carry out the recommendations which were contained in the Minority Report of the Royal Commission. But I would like in
that connection to support what was said with regard to the women's vote in this country. When we know that the women of this country hold far more strongly religious beliefs than men do, and everyone who has any acquaintance with the religious life of the country is aware of that, I think we may claim that those in these Islands who profess allegiance to Christianity would wish to pay special regard to religious teachings, and I think the women of the country should therefore have an opportunity of expressing their opinion. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Munro) mentioned the question of Scotland. May I observe that, although it may be true that people in Scotland are not more immoral than those in this country, yet in the evidence that came before the Royal Commission with regard to every country on earth, there was not one single piece given by any individual which showed that the whole life of a country was improved by an increase in the number of divorces. As far as Scotland is concerned, I may say that from the statistics for 1917, the latest I have been able to obtain, Scotland is not so moral as either England or Wales, seeing that the number of illegitimate births among unmarried women and widows was 10.9 per thousand there, as against 7.4 per thousand for England and Wales. These statistics affect women between the ages of 15 and 45 years.
10.0 P.M.
While my right hon. Friend was speaking, some one mentioned the case of America. It is perfectly true, and it is known to almost every Member of this House, that there are many people in America to-day who have very strong views on this question and are very anxious, if possible, to change the divorce laws in America, because they find that the laxity which results is not in the interests of the country as a whole. I met a man to-day who had met a woman who had been divorced in America eleven times. One can imagine what that meant to the children. One can imagine the effect of an increase of divorces upon children. I think that question has not been emphasised sufficiently to-night. It is one on which the mothers of England will feel very strongly in the future. May I, before I sit down, say one word with regard to the very peculiar position in which Members are placed
who are going to vote against this Resolution? There are many of us who feel some hesitation, having regard to many cases which come under our notice. There are many of us who have friends in this country who for many years have had to endure great hardships, and we feel that there may be, in those particular cases, grave reason why there should be some way out of their difficulties, but I think that every one of us who considers the home life of this country as a whole, who considers the question of the sanctity of marriage, and the advantage which has obtained from the fact that people look upon marriage as insoluble, will agree that we ought to look at this question from the very broadest point of view, and ought not to change our views because of the indignation we feel in regard to the peculiar circumstances of individuals. The Report of the Minority of the Royal Commission was one of great importance, but in ordinary circumstances I should be inclined to consider the Majority Report with more favour, except for the question to which I have referred to-night, and which I want once more to emphasise, namely, the religious point of view. I do think that, if we believe in that divine commandment which has been mentioned to-night, we ought to try to carry it out to the best of our ability. I believe that, if the nation desires, as the signatories of the Minority Report believe it does, to maintain the life-long obligation in marriage, we cannot ask this Parliament to give up what we believe to be a priceless heritage.

Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I am sure that my right hon. Friend, the lucidity and high tone of whose speech the House must have appreciated, will forgive me if I do not go further and make any comment on his speech, but venture for a few minutes to address the House on another of the very many aspects which this grave and complex question presents to all who think about it. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury has done a public service in calling the attention of the House to the urgency, and, in a sense, the acuteness, of the problem of divorce in this country and at this time. The very fact that those who support his Motion and those who oppose it are agreed in desiring two very important alterations in the law, namely, that which would establish equality as between the sexes,
and that which would remove the scandalous inequality of treatment as between rich and poor—the fact that both are agreed upon—shows that this is a matter which is a very living issue in England to-day, and one upon which legislation, to some extent, at any rate, ought to take place promptly and with care, and under the responsibility of the Government. While I hope that the House agrees that my hon. Friend has done a public service in raising this issue, I trust that I am not alone among hon. Members in regretting the form and the way in which he has brought it before the House. However he may, by delightful, dialectical words, represent his Motion as merely being in the form of a Second Reading of a hypothetical Bill, the fact does remain that those who vote for this Motion may reasonably be considered to adhere to all the important recommendations of the majority of the Royal Commission; and that, on the other hand, those who vote against it, or vote in favour of the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. McNeill), are equally open to the reasonable interpretation that the alterations of the divorce laws which they alone would tolerate are those mentioned in my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment.
It may happen that there are a number who are not inclined to go the whole way and at the same time do not wish to be pinned down to the terms of the Amendment. It is, indeed, right and proper that this question should be discussed, and on an occasion like this it has to be discussed with the utmost brevity, but it is certainly not fitting that, in a Debate of less than three hours, the House should be committed and hon. Members should be put in the invidious position of having to support all the recommendations on the most complex and difficult of social questions, or take up their stand definitely on one or two limited and restricted recommendations. Therefore, I hope I am not wasting the time of the House in making my protest against the form and way in which this is raised, because I think it is not fair to Members of the House to be put into the cleft stick which this Resolution, intentionally or otherwise, has prepared for them. The reason is this. The recommendations of the majority of the Royal Commission are
not only many and various, but they deal with a number of different principles. The principle of sex equality we agree to. The principle of equality between rich and poor we agree to. But besides those who are opposed to all divorce and those who acquiesce in the existing law with only those two possible alterations there must be others, like myself, who believe that the arguments for other recommendations of the Royal Commission vary very much. Take, for instance, the case of the argument for divorce for desertion. My right hon. Friend has put the argument for that, based on his authoritative knowledge of Scotland, with a force that every Member who heard his speech must recognise, and whether one feels that divorce for desertion is right or whether one believes it to be wrong, at any rate it rests on the alleged principle that continuous deliberate desertion by one partner against the will of the other is in effect the destruction of marriage, and is a direct and wilful breaking of the obligations of marriage. Whatever view may be taken of that, it is a very different thing from suggesting that divorce should be given for habitual drunkenness or chronic insanity or commuted death penalty, because however terrible those things are they do not of necessity consist in wilful breaking of the essence of the marriage tie. In insanity a large element, possibly some-times the whole of it is misfortune. In habitual drunkenness there is an element very often of hereditary disease and weakness of will as well as of intention. And in that matter, which lends itself so easily to rhetorical embroidery, the few cases of persons condemned to death who are reprieved, I hope the House will not misunderstand me when I say, and I speak as one who happens to have been concerned professionally in a rather large number of murder cases, that while murder receives in our country proper punishment when proved, the murderer not seldom is not so bad a man or woman as many other persons whose actual crime against the State is less lurid or less grave.
There are cases of men, and women even, who have committed murder the general course of whose lives has been free from many crimes and vices which other persons have fallen before. With regard to murderers under commuted sentence, if a person is reprieved, who
can say how it will work out? There are questions of health and a mass of circumstances which may cause the Home Office in exceptional cases to set murderers free long before the expiration of 20 or 25 years. Ought they of necessity to have been divorced because of their original sentence? I am not arguing for or against, except to say that that kind of consideration is entirely different from the principles upon which other exceptions are founded. These are matters which, although they affect profoundly married life, do not in their inception and in their essence consist of deliberate and direct attacks on the foundations of marriage. Therefore, it is a very great pity that the House should be asked to-night, if this goes to a vote, to vote holus bolus for a large number of recommendations which raise different principles on which it is quite conceivable there may be differences of opinion as between this, that and the other.
Because of the very gravity of this issue, the inherent complexity of it, and the profound importance of the fact that the basis of society and of family life should not be undermined, and, on the other hand, because of the fact that none of us have any right to make our own religious principles compulsory upon the community whether it shares them or not; because these common-place considerations make the matter of such extreme difficulty, I hope that the House will not pass this Motion to-night. I hope the House, by this Debate, will make it easier for the Government to deal with this question, and will make the Government clearly understand that the time has come for the question of divorce to be reopened, and for the Government to take the responsibility for what proposals shall be laid before this House in due course. I hope that may be done, but that those of us who follow the arguments for each of these different categories, varying in degree and varying in weight, shall not be compelled to vote either, on the one hand, in favour of them all, or, on the other hand, against them all. I feel that this is one of those rare occasions on which one is acting with the greatest straightforwardness by declining to vote either way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I say so for this reason, that the responsibility rests with the Government, and I do not think it right at this stage that
we should be compelled to commit ourselves to many proposals, some of which may be obviously right while others may depend very largely on a far closer analysis than is possible to-night, a more prolonged Debate, and a far more thorough consideration before we take the responsibility of saying "Aye" or "No" to some of them.

Viscountess ASTOR: We have listened to very fine speeches to-night. Hon. Members are quite right in saying that this is a question which is vital to the country as a whole. In the Christian world it is the spiritual aspect of marriage that the law attempts to protect, and it is the spiritual element which makes marriages happy. Most hon. Members have said that. They all know it, and we women, particularly, know it. The-spiritual idea of marriage, though started in the East, has been more highly developed in the West, and it is that which has elevated the Western women a little above their Eastern sisters. That is the difference between the East and the-West. We must do nothing which will weaken it. Therefore, I shall support the Amendment. I am not convinced that making divorce very easy really makes marriages more happy or makes happy marriages more possible. Married happiness depends upon mutual affection and many other things, but I do think that there are inequalities and injustices in the existing divorce laws which are morally wrong and ought to be changed without delay.
Marriage infidelity is one of the greatest causes of social suffering in the whole world. War is such an abnormal thing that it has created abnormal conditions, and those are the conditions in which we are now. I would rather wait until after the strain of war. I would rather wait a little longer until the world is a little more settled and society is a little more settled before we begin to apply the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The War has led to many hasty and unhappy marriages, but I doubt whether we can wholly escape from these social consequences of war any more than we can escape from the economic and physical consequences, and perhaps there is a little pressure in that war cry. Perhaps hon. Members are a little prompted by it. It certainly is heard throughout the country. I do feel, however, most strongly that the
present inequalities of the divorce law as regards men and women ought to be abolished. You will never get real morality anywhere so long as you recognise a double standard for men and for women. The present divorce law supports and emphasises this double standard.
I have been encouraged to-night by hearing so many Members speak of the sanctity of the married life and its spiritual and moral aspect. I hope they will bear that in mind, that it really is the true moral standard, and that this difference is a thing that they have got to face when they talk of raising a higher standard in marriage, and that men and women have got to begin with the children, sons as well as daughters, to bring them up to that high ideal. I believe that it can be done, and I am quite certain that all hon. Members, all the fathers—and I regret that there are not more mothers here—will agree that that is one of the things we have got to bear in mind. Most hon. Members have spoken about the inequality between rich and poor. Of course, we want to make it equally possible for the poor as well as for the rich to get a divorce whenever the cause exists. At present it is too often a case of money, but a way should be found for reducing the expense of divorce, and on this the Royal Commission has made suggestions which can be carried out.
I do not believe in a hard and narrow attitude towards this question. I want, in making up my mind about some of the proposals of the Commission, to see during the next five or ten years how far some of them should be adopted and modified without lowering the dignity of marriage. After all, as hon. Members have said, this question affects women far more than it does men. The hon. Member for Canterbury has spoken of our fading charms. He is quite right. Women do fade quickly, but the thing that really holds men to women is not the physical charm. It attracts them, but it does not keep them. I will not go off on to that. We all know that we make too much of that side of it. It is from the woman's point of view that I wish to speak. If you weaken the divorce laws it is always hard on the women and children. It is hard enough as it is. Life is always more difficult for women, but I hope all that will change in time.
In America, where States have such easy divorce, I do not think that women have gained. I feel certain that we are all trying to look for what is going to help the women and children most. Whenever that appeal is made it meets with aft unfailing response. I realise that the findings of a Royal Commission, which included judges of long experience of the Divorce Court, cannot be disregarded, but I think the judges may be inclined to see things too much from the sordid and tragic Bide and not sufficiently from the normal point of view. It is really like reading the newspapers. You take up a newspaper and you are appalled at the crime and misery there is in the world. But of course they put that forward; in fact they seem to be inclined to put forward what is worst in human nature without putting forward what is best. It is very often that way in the Divorce Court. Women's views ought to have a special value on the subject because nothing else concerns them quite so intimately. In my experience, as I have said, women want to preserve the dignity of marriage. I do not believe there is any great outcry among the women of the country for this Bill. There is a real cry for justice and equality of treatment. I have heard that, and I know that there are pitiful and tragic cases. There are always tragic cases. Laws are made for the majority, and the minority very often has to suffer. It is always so, and I am afraid it will be a long time before we can change that. I beg the House, in thinking of this question, to consider it from a large point of view and not to dwell just on the miseries and inequalities. They are sad enough in all conscience. Get back to the principle. Shall we help women and children and men by making divorce easier? I think the world is too loose altogether. What we need is tightening up. I want to tighten up the men as well as the women. I feel that the hon. Member who brought forward this Motion did it from very splendid motives, and I was much struck by the way he looked at things. It may be asked, "Why are you going against it; you are supposed to be a social reformer and an independent woman?" I really have thought of it a great deal and gone into it fully, and I do not think that this is the time or that it would be wise for us to pass this Resolution. It is not really
going to help the great bulk of men and women of the country, and it is those we are out to help. I am not even taking the Church point of view, but the national point of view, and what I might call, the home point of view.

Mr. ACLAND: I am going to support this Resolution largely on a ground on which we are all agreed, namely, that there should be equality in this matter as between the two sexes. With regard to one point, the dignity of marriage, I would ask this: Are you going seriously to tell the women of Scotland that marriage is less dignified there and that their status is lower because of the difference of the divorce laws compared with England? That is not tenable and there is no solid body of Scottish women who would accept that position I support this Resolution because from the bottom of my being and as the result of my own experience of a most gloriously happy marriage, I want to support the sacred-ness of the marriage tie and to do everything I can to make it more sacred for the people of this country. It is the present law which brings into disrepute our marriage tie If hon. Members will really get to know, as I have had the chance of doing, the lives and family affairs, say, of a whole village in our country side, or, say of two or three streets in a poor part of one of our towns they will find instances of people living together quite faithfully but without being married, and they will find that those unions are not generally condemned. They will inquire if they are interested, and they will find that those communities in which those people live are moral and often highly religious, and yet there is no condemnation or criticism of the persons living in those unions. The people there may be asked, "Do you in this district really approve of two persons taking up with one another without getting married," and the reply will probably be, "Oh, no! We by no means wish that sort of thing, but those unions are unions of persons who under our present law cannot get married." The inquirer will get various answers. He will hear, as I have heard, in Notting Hill, in several rural districts in Wales, in Yorkshire, in Devonshire, in Cornwall, cases of two people' living together where the husband or wife disappeared years ago. It may be the case of a woman where there was a
separation order and where she has not seen or heard of the husband for many years, and then, perhaps, when the woman is no longer able to earn her own living, and is not willing to go into the workhouse, which is the only alternative, she goes to live with a man, and has done so faithfully. You may find the case of a man whose wife has been incurably insane, and where there is destruction of the brain and no sort of recognition. The woman in that case is living a purely animal, almost vegetable, existence, and the man, it may be after years, goes to live with another woman. Public opinion does not condemn that union, but the Church says it is fornication, and that the woman is a concubine. That is not doing any good to religion or to our marriage law. It is because that sort of thing brings our present marriage law into disrepute and because I wish to bring our marriage law into conformity with reasonable opinion held of hundreds of thousands of cases—and we know in our daily lives of instances of such cases—that I am in favour of and shall vote for the Resolution.

Mr. SEXTON: I do not pretend on this occasion to speak for the Party with which I am associated. I confess I find myself considerably handicapped by the fact that I hardly agree with the Amendment any more than with the Resolution, I happen to belong to a community that by faith and by tradition and environment refuses to subscribe to the law of divorce in any shape or form, but I want to dissociate myself for a moment from that and speak as a citizen of the Empire, and I want to examine shortly the conditions laid down in the Majority Report, which was quoted by the hon. Member who introduced this discussion. One of them was that there were a considerable number of hard cases. I admit that. I have found in my own experience particularly hard cases, and may I say within the circle of my own family; but we have not had any figures to prove how numerous they are or how they compare with the enormous number of citizens of the Empire, and we are seriously asked, without any statistics to prove it—and I think it is estimated at the outside that not more than 1½ per cent. of the whole of the people are affected in the way that has been described—we are asked for the sake of 1½ per cent. of the people to undermine the greatest moral asset of
the nation, namely, the family life of the whole community. I admit that in cases of lunacy or of habitual drunkenness there may be extenuating circumstances, but one of the reasons put forward was that this was legislation to help the working-class people, and particularly the working-class women.
I wonder if the hon. Member who introduced this discussion knows anything about the feelings of the working class women on this subject. We who have lived among and still belong to the working classes can claim to know more about the opinion of the working class wife than can the hon. Member himself, and if he would take the trouble to go down into the slum districts, where the working class wife lives or exists under the most horrible conditions, whose husband may be all that has been described by the hon. Member, and would suggest to her that she should outrage her marriage certificate or the wedding ring on her finger, the reception he would get would surprise the hon. Member. It is the brightest jewel of her crown. I have known working class women living under shocking conditions who would starve sooner than pawn their wedding ring, although their husbands were not of the best. Another suggestion is made that after a separation or a desertion of three years, a man or a woman should be entitled to claim divorce; but let us follow that out to its logical conclusion and see what is its meaning. It means that at the end of three years a roan or a woman can marry again, and if they find, from some of the causes described in the Majority Report, that they cannot agree at the end of six months, they separate again, and at the end of three years after that they marry again to somebody else, and they go on, and inside of 12 years the man can have four wives and the woman can have four husbands. Is not that what it amounts to?
May I make a suggestion to the hon. Member who is so anxious to improve the morals of the people? If he goes deep down to the roots of the question he will find that the cause of many of the unhappy marriages to-day is the environment of the working classes—the bad economic conditions, the filthy housing, and the surroundings in which they live. I speak from considerable experience, and my mind goes back to my own family circle. My dear old mother, who had a
great struggle to rear a big family, bore her cross manfully. She is only typical of hundreds of thousands of working class women of this country. May I very respectfully say that it is women like her who are the moral backbone of the nation. Their simple trust in the mercy and judgment of a divine Providence is one of the greatest assets that a nation can possess.

Major WARING: I desire to support the Motion, and I agree with the hon. Member for Middleton (Sir Ryland Adkins) that in bringing it forward the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Kendall) has done a public service, though I must disagree with him when he said that he did not think the House should go to a division. After listening to the arguments against the Motion, I trust that there will be no weakening, and that we shall go to a division on the five points, namely: equality of the sexes, desertion, drunkenness, insanity, cruelty, and imprisonment for a long period. The hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) seemed to suggest that this Motion had been brought forward as the result of a wave of sentiment which is going over the country at the present time as the outcome of the War. The majority Report, upon which this Motion is based, was presented before the War, as the result of three years' deliberations and of taking evidence. Therefore, that argument hardly applies. I myself come under the Scottish law in this matter. In Scotland, as the Secretary for Scotland has said, desertion has been a ground for divorce for the past 300 years. I am grateful to the Secretary for Scotland for intervening and proving conclusively that the result of that law has not been to make Scotland less religious, marriages less happy, or divorce more frequent. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Pease) produced figures by which he attempted to show that Scotland was more immoral than other parts of the United Kingdom. Hon Members who cheer that statement must, I think, acknowledge that, if illegitimate children are more numerous in Scotland, it is not due to the fact that divorce is possible on the ground of desertion.

Mr. PEASE: In the Minority Report it is stated that there are twice as many divorces in Scotland as in this country.

Major WARING: Not on the ground of desertion. At all events, desertion is the ground of divorce in seventeen other Christian countries, and in the Dominions drunkenness and insanity are grounds of divorce. The hon. Member for Canterbury said that if habitual drunkenness was to be a reason for divorce, why should not indulgence in morphia or cocaine? My answer to that is that habitual drunkenness is incurable, whereas the mania of morphia and cocaine taking is curable. I read with very great care the speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury in another place on Lord Buckmaster's Bill, and the only argument I could find affecting this proposal was that there were not enough hard cases to warrant a change. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment said that hard cases make bad law, but at the same time it is hard cases which make reform necessary, and I would ask all who oppose this Resolution, how many hard cases are necessary before they admit that a change should be made. There has been no answer whatever to the contention made by the Lord Chancellor in another place that marriage is as much a spiritual union as it is a union of two bodies. If the marriage vow refers solely to the union of two bodies I admit divorce is impossible on any ground whatever, but if the marriage vow refers to the union of two minds, which I believe, then I say it is possible for other reasons besides infidelity, and I can imagine the deplorable and unfortunate case in which a man is stricken with paralysis, but at the same time his mind remains alert, he can appreciate his surroundings, and is capable of affection, and in greater need of it. In a case of that kind, divorce, of course, is not sought, but in a case of a man who habitually weakens his mind by drunkenness or incurable dementia—and we have it, on the opinion of a distinguished Member of this House, that it is incurable—when he ceases to be able to appreciate his surroundings, and fails even to recognise his own wife, then, I say, in a case of that kind, the man is dead, and the separation of husband and wife is as complete as if death had occurred. I do trust that the hon. Member who proposed this Resolution will go to a Division, when I, for one, will most certainly support him.

Colonel Sir ROBERT WILLIAMS: The hon. Member who spoke last referred to the distinction between the spiritual marriage and the marriage of the body, but I would remind him that the marriage contract is that which binds together the bodies, and that men and women may have very spiritual kinship without entering into the marriage contract, and without any awakening of the sins which lead to divorce. The hon. Member for Camborne again, has spoken of people living together in irregular unions rather than go to the workhouse. Are irregular unions right or wrong? Are they or are they not, sin? I should honour the people who prefer to go to the workhouse rather than live in sin, and I should have hoped that the public opinion of the various villages and of the different localities would have also so honoured these people.
We have heard a good deal of talk of unhappy marriages. Who makes them? The people who contract them, who contract them thoughtlessly. There is no question but that since divorce has been made easier that these unhappy marriages have been much more common than 50 or 60 years ago. The consequences to the children have been referred to. Make divorce more difficult and not more easy, and the children will not suffer. Do not make divorce more easy and then say: "Look at the consequences to the children?" The Secretary for Scot land, I understand, spoke of the perfect system of desertions in Scotland. You have only to commit these evils for four years, and then you get your divorce. That is not the way to cure the evil. Then as to separation orders. Our system is very bad. I should like to see it altered, and framed somewhat, perhaps, on the American model, where the separated couples are not, as here, left to their own devices, but are under the supervision of an officer of the Court for the six months, and if either side does evil the separation order is not renewed. We should certainly make equality between the rich and the poor. I could never see why we should not have divorce assizes when the Court is on circuit. If the poor cannot afford to go to the Divorce Court, the Court should go to them—should go round. I am not fully in favour of the equality of the sexes At the same time I have as much sympathy with the tempted boys as with the tempted girls. I want to quote
again, though with another meaning, the words to which reference has been made, those of the Lord Chancellor. He said: "The spiritual and moral side of marriage are incapably more important than the physical side." Of course they are much more important. Are you going to heighten the idea of the spiritual side of marriage by making it more easy to break the marriage tie? Are you going to make it more easy by debasing the level of your moral aspirations, instead of doing that to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. P. Pease) alluded so feelingly, going to the very highest for your example, and to the very highest for the command? Are you going to say that human nature is so evil and is getting worse, that home surroundings are getting so bad that you must whittle this matter down? Whittle down what? We may whittle down our own consciences, but you cannot whittle down the Divine command, and anyone who tries to do it is a spiritual decadent, and is doing harm and not good to his country.

Major ENTWISTLE: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment in such a very excellent speech did a great service to the cause of the hon. Member who moved the Resolution. We all enjoyed his wit, but the arguments which he advanced in favour of his Amendment seemed much more appropriate to supporting the Resolution which has been proposed to-night. The hon. Member went into an interesting discussion as to what the average marriage was, and he said that he was inclined to think that it was mostly a humdrum affair, and he came to the conclusion that the only way in which this Resolution would cause the marriage tie to be affected adversely would be because those ladies who, as the years advance, had lost some of their glory and beauty and charm, would be unable to keep their husbands tied to them. That is an extraordinary argument to be put forward by an hon. Gentleman who claims to be advancing the sanctity of the marriage tie. If it can be put forward that the only way a wife can keep the affections of her husband after she has got to such an age as to have lost some of her physical charms—any Resolution which provides for divorce on such grounds as those recommended by the Divorce Commission, it seems to me an extraordinary argument to advance.
What are the other arguments which have been advanced? The Resolution has been criticised because the definition of cruelty was purely a definition for physical acts. The Resolution and the recommendations of the Divorce Commission are designed to remove the anomalies which at present exist and to increase the grounds on which divorce can be obtained. Because this definition of cruelty happens to be limited to certain physical acts, that does not mean that the supporters of this Resolution are not perfectly agreeable to include in the definition more spiritual grounds of cruelty. That is no argument. He said, "Let us be satisfied with getting as much as we can; let us move by stages." But we are perfectly agreeable to add morphomania as one of the grounds for divorce. He asked us not to consider this question from the point of view of marriages which are failures, but from the point of view of marriages which are not failures. It seems to me, as regards marriages which are not failures, the question of divorce does not arise at all. That is the last consideration which should be applied to this question. Surely the whole question of divorce is merely dealing with those marriages which are failures—which are gross failures—and, which cause enormous misery and suffering. It is only that standpoint that can possibly be applied to this question. At this stage of our advancement we cannot consider these things as purely religious questions. The Mover of the Resolution said there was nothing to stop any person who feels strongly on this matter from conforming to those views and not taking advantage of any alteration in legislation. The point to consider on this question is the social aspect. Take the question of children. It was said that enough stress has not been laid on that aspect. It was said by the hon. Member who spoke last that the consequences to the children would be serious if divorce were made easier. Can anyone say that, where people are tied together and cannot get a divorce, children who live with their parents in such conditions do not suffer? Can any one say that where you have a judicial separation and where there are obviously immoral relations taking place—can any one say that where children live with parents under those conditions—

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: May I appeal to the hon. Member to allow a Division to be taken? We are very anxious to come to a vote.

Major ENTWISTLE: If and when the hon. Member in charge of the Resolution wishes to put it he will find I am entirely in his hands, and I shall be ready to sit down. Can anybody say that children who are living with parents who have lost their affection for one another—

Mr. R. McNEILL: rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 91; Noes, 134.

Division No. 85.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Grundy, T. W.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Beck, Sir C. (Essex, Saffron Walden)
Hallas, Eldred
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Perring, William George


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hancock, John George
Rae, H. Norman


Billing, Noel Pemberton-
Hayday, Arthur
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Hogge, James Myles
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Briant, Frank
Holmes, J. Stanley
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)


Campbell, J. D. G.
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.
Jameson, J. Gordon
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Johnstone, Joseph
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Spoor, B. G.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stanton, Charles B.


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Kiley, James D.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lloyd-Greame, Major P.
Sutherland, Sir William


Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Dawes, James Arthur
Lunn, William
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Waring, Major Walter


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.


Fell, Sir Arthur
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Mitchell, William Lane



Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Mr. Rendall and Lieut.-Colonel


Grant, James A.
Morison, Thomas Brash
 Raw.


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert



NOES.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hurd, Percy A.


Astor, Viscountess
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Baird, John Lawrence
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jephcott, A. R.


Baldwin, Stanley
Courthope, Major George L.
Johnson, L. S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kenyon, Barnet


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lane-Fox, G. R.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)


Barnston, Major Harry
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lloyd, George Butler


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Doyle, N. Grattan
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Edgar, Clifford B.
Lyon, Laurance


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Finney, Samuel
Macmaster, Donald


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Mallalieu, F. W.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Forestler-Walker, L.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Galbraith, Samuel
Middlebrook, Sir William


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Brackenbury, Captain H. L.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Morris, Richard


Breese, Major Charles E.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Morrison, Hugh


Bridgeman, William Clive
Greer, Harry
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.


Bruton, Sir James
Gretton, Colonel John
Mount, William Arthur


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Nall, Major Joseph


Butcher, Sir John George
Hallwood, Augustine
Neal, Arthur


Cairns, John
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Camplon, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Nield, Sir Herbert


Cautley, Henry S.
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hood, Joseph
O'Grady, Captain James


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Oman, Charles William C.


O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Seager, Sir William
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Sexton, James
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Wignall, James


Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Perkins, Walter Frank
Spencer, George A.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Sugden, W. H.
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Purchase, H. G.
Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'st'r)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Terrell, George, (Wilts, Chippenham)
Wolmer, Viscount


Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Thomas-Stanford, Charles
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Robinson, Sir. T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry



Rose, Frank H.
Townley, Maximilian G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Waddington, R.
Mr. R. McNeill and Mr. Evelyn


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
 Cecil.


Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Proposed words there added.

Resolved, "That in the opinion of this House, while it is desirable to place the sexes on a footing of equality in regard to divorce, any change in the law that would impair the permanence of the marriage contract would be harmful to the best interests of the community."

TREATIES OF PEACE (AUSTRIA AND BULGARIA) [EXPENSES].

Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred under any Act of the present Session for carrying into effect Treaties of Peace between His Majesty and certain other Powers."—(King's Recommendation Signified, To-morrow.)—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM [EXPENSES].

Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expenses incurred by the Trustee? of the Imperial War Museum in carrying into effect any Act of the present Session to make provision for the management of the Imperial War Museum and for other purposes connected therewith."—(King's Recommendation Signified, To-morrow.)—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes after Eleven of the Clock.